Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Provisional Order Bills (Standing Orders applicable thereto complied with),

Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That in the case of the following Bill, referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders, which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, namely:

Newcastle-upon-Tyne Corporation (Trolley Vehicles) Provisional Order Bill.

Bill to be read a Second time To-morrow.

Provisional Order Bills (No Standing Orders applicable),

Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That in the case of the following Bills, referred on the First Reading thereof, no Standing Orders are applicable, namely:

Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Ealing Extension) Bill.

Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Somerset and Wilts) Bill.

Bills to be read a Second time To-morrow.

Grimsby Corporation (Grimsby and District Water, etc.) Bill (by Order),

Second Reading deferred till To-morrow, at half-past Seven of the clock.

Rochdale Corporation Bill (by Order),

Second Reading deferred till To-morrow.

Rotherham Corporation Bill (by Order),

Sheffield Corporation Bill (by Order),

Second Reading deferred till To-morrow, at half-past Seven of the clock.

Southern Railway Bill (by Order),

Staffordshire County Council Bill (by Order),

Torquay Corporation Bill (by Order),

Second Reading deferred till To-morrow.

Watford Corporation Bill (by Order),

Read a Second time, and committed.

West Ham Corporation Bill (by Order),

Second Reading deferred till Thursday.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

UNITED STATES (CONVERSATIONS).

Mr. Hall-Caine: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he was able to ascertain during his recent visit to the United States if the time had arrived for commencing active trade negotiations between the United States of America and Great Britain with a view to the drafting of a new trade agreement?

Sir Percy Harris: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is in a position to report any results from his visit to the United States of America; whether he discussed with the President at Washington the international trade position; and whether there is any immediate prospect of a reduction of trade barriers and lowering of tariff duties between the United States of America and this country?

The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Runciman): During my visit to Washington I had many opportunities for an informal exchange of views with the President of the United States and Mr. Cordell Hull on a variety of subjects of common interest to the two countries. It was at no time intended that I should conduct negotiations with the United States Government on any subject. As regards trade matters, I had several useful conversations, from which it appeared that further exploration will be necessary before it can be determined whether there is a firm basis upon which detailed negotiations can take place for a reciprocal trade agreement.
I am glad to take this opportunity of expressing my gratitude to the President


of the United States and the members of the United States Government for the friendly reception which they gave to me. I hope that the result of our conversations will be to facilitate economic cooperation between the United States and ourselves.

Sir P. Harris: Does the right hon. Gentleman suggest that his visit was not of an official character and that he had no definite purpose in going out to America?

Mr. Runciman: I should say that it was informal rather than formal.

Mr. Thorne: Were there any whispers about the debt?

Mr. Henderson Stewart: When are the further explorations to which my right hon. Friend referred to be proceeded with?

Mr. Runciman: They are proceeding at the present time.

Sir Percy Hurd: asked the President of the Board of Trade the purport and outcome of his conversations at Washington regarding the United States subsidies to shipping in the Pacific and the menace they constitute to British Empire shipping in those seas?

Mr. Runciman: The subject was not discussed. As the House has been informed by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, the present position is that His Majesty's Government have formulated certain proposals which are at present under consideration by the Dominion Governments concerned.

Sir P. Hurd: Did my right hon. Friend find any disposition in Washington to forgo the excessive subsidies given to American steamships on the Pacific?

Mr. Runciman: It was not discussed by us, and I cannot say what their opinion is.

Mr. A. V. Alexander: Did the right hon. Gentleman see Mr. Franklin?

Mr. Runciman: I do not know that Mr. Franklin had anything to do with this subject.

IRON AND STEEL INDUSTRY.

Mr. R. Acland: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether the report of the Import Duties Advisory Committee

into the iron and steel industry will be published as soon as may be after it is made?

Mr. Runciman: Yes, Sir.

EGGS (IMPORTS).

Captain Heilgers: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is taking steps to revive the voluntary quota on egg imports from foreign countries which operated until the early months of 1936?

Mr. Runciman: No, Sir. The earlier requests to foreign countries to control their shipments were designed to regulate total supplies coming on to the market during the period that the Reorganisation Commissions on eggs and poultry were sitting.

Captain Heilgers: As apparently a voluntary quota is the only available method of assisting this hard-pressed industry at present, will my right hon. Friend, if he rejects it, take steps to hasten the termination of those trade agreements that are hampering any further assistance?

Mr. Runciman: I shall be glad to consider the point in the light of what my hon. and gallant Friend has said.

Mr. Turton: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the imports of eggs have increased from 18,000,000 to 24,000,000, causing havoc in the home poultry industry?

Captain Macnamara: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the distress among those in the poultry industry in this country is very acute, and will he seriously look into it to see what can be done immediately?

Lieut.-Colonel Acland-Troyte: Is my right hon. Friend aware that poultry farmers are mostly small men who cannot afford these heavy losses?

OSLO CONVENTION.

Sir P. Harris: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he proposes at an early date to open negotiations with the Oslo Convention States; and whether he is aware that there is a widespread feeling that the time is opportune for the countries which desire greater freedom in the exchange of their goods to get together in an endeavour to promote it?

Mr. Runciman: I am not clear as to what kind of negotiations the hon. Member has in mind. The Oslo Convention does not in itself provide for greater freedom in the exchange of goods between the signatories. The attitude of His Majesty's Government towards the question of the freer exchange of goods in international trade has already been stated by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the reply which he gave on 12th November last to questions asked by the hon. Members for East Birkenhead (Mr. White) and Pontypool (Mr. Jenkins).

Sir P. Harris: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Government of the Netherlands on 5th February sent an invitation to the Scandinavian States, Finland and Belgium to meet at the Hague for the purpose of bringing about closer economic co-operation between those countries, and does not the right hon. Gentleman desire that this country should have the advantage of close economic co-operation with those States which have so much in common with us?

Mr. Runciman: If my hon. Friend desires further information as to what has been proposed at this conference, I must have notice.

Sir P. Harris: I was not asking for that. I was asking whether the right hon. Gentleman was aware that such a conference had been summoned at the Hague, and whether he will endeavour to arrange that this country should be represented.

Mr. Runciman: If my hon. Friend is asking about representation at the conference, I should say that that is unnecessary at the present moment.

Mr. Ellis Smith: Is there any truth in the statement which has appeared in a number of British newspapers that a prospective loan is being discussed?

CLOTHING AND FOOD (MONOPOLIES).

Mr. Day: asked the President of the Board of Trade what statistics exist in his Department to show which of the articles of clothing or food in common use in this country are the subject of any form of monopoly or trust?

Mr. Runciman: I am not aware of any statistics of this kind.

Mr. Day: Would the preparation of statistics of this kind be very costly?

Mr. Runciman: I doubt whether they can be obtained.

Mr. Holdsworth: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is no such thing as a monopoly in clothing?

PATENT OFFICE.

Mr. Day: asked the President of the Board of Trade what is, approximately, the average time taken to get a patent through the Patent Office?

Mr. Runciman: The period which elapses between the date of first application and the final grant of a patent varies considerably according to the circumstances of each case. The hon. Member will be aware that a delay of 13 months may, in law, elapse between the lodging of the first application and the lodging by the applicant of the complete specification. The law also provides that a minimum period of two months must elapse between the acceptance of a complete specification by the Patent Office and the grant of the patent. The average time taken at present between the date of first application and the granting of a patent is from 15 to 16 months.

Mr. Day: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that this is rather undue delay, and will he do something to speed up the arrangements?

Mr. Runciman: What delay there is is not due to any imperfections in the Patent Office.

Mr. H. G. Williams: Is it possible for my right hon. Friend's Department to issue a patent in respect of questions?

MACHINERY (IMPORTS).

Mr. Liddall: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that the imports of machinery into this country have increased from 54,745 tons in 1932 to 103,452 tons in 1936; how much of the machinery imported in 1936 was exempted from duty on the ground that it was of the kind not made here; and what steps he proposes to take to facilitate the increased manufacture in this country of the kind of machinery we are able to make?

Mr. Runciman: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative.


Of the machinery imported in 1936 about 23 per cent. by value was imported free of duty under licences issued on the ground that similar machinery was not for the time being procurable in the United Kingdom. The machine-tool industry and other makers of machinery for which there is an increased demand are making every effort to increase their production.

Mr. Louis Smith: Having regard to the enormous increase in these figures, will the right hon. Gentleman consider requesting the Import Duties Advisory Committee to make special inquiry to find out what measures have been taken to decrease such importations?

Mr. Runciman: The Committee have from time to time looked into this question, and only recently, I think, completed an inquiry.

Mr. T. Williams: Can the right hon. Gentleman say approximately what was the value of the exports of machinery from this country?

Mr. Runciman: I could not say that without notice.

Mr. H. G. Williams: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what was the result of the inquiry?

Mr. Runciman: There appear to have been a number of results, and one of the most important is that if machinery is required here for our manufacturers—[Interruption.]

Sir Frank Sanderson: Is it not a fact that a great proportion of the machinery which has been introduced into this country is of a highly technical and secretive character and cannot be manufactured in this country?

Mr. Runciman: Yes, that description is quite properly used in regard to some of the machines, but they are not all of the same kind.

TOMATOES (IMPORT DUTY).

Major Dorman-Smith: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether a decision has been reached on the recommendation of the Import Duties Advisory Committee regarding the import duty on tomatoes?

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Lieut.-Colonel Colville): I hope that a decision will be reached and published at an early date.

EXPORT CREDITS.

Mr. Thurtle: asked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department in which countries losses have been incurred in connection with guarantees under the export credits scheme?

Captain Euan Wallace (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): Guarantees have been given by the Export Credits Guarantee Department in connection with exports all over the world, and losses have been incurred, at one time or another, in many countries. I think it might be misleading to give a list of the countries, as it would be out of all proportion to the amount of the losses incurred.

Mr. Thurtle: Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman say whether generally all those countries in which losses have been incurred are capitalist countries?

Captain Ramsay: Are there no limits to Communist propaganda in this House?

Oral Answers to Questions — MERCANTILE MARINE.

SWONA ISLAND, ORKNEY (COMMUNICATION).

Major Neven-Spence: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that in less than three years three large steamers have been wrecked on Swona, Orkney; that 30 lives were lost in the latest wreck; and that on this occasion, as in August, 1936, when a party of workmen employed on a wreck narrowly escaped death, the people of Swona could not establish contact with South Ronaldsay for the purpose of calling out the Longhope lifeboat and the life-saving crews; and whether, in view of this gap in the life-saving chain, he will undertake to establish some form of communication between Swona and South Ronaldsay which can be relied upon in all states of the weather?

Mr. Runciman: I am aware of two vessels being wrecked on the Swona Island, Orkney, in the past three years—the Swedish steamship "Gunnaren" in August, 1935, and the Finnish steamship "Johanna Thorden" on 12th January last. In the first case, the crew


of 26 were rescued by the Longhope lifeboat after the receipt of an S O S message from the ship In the second case, the loss of life appears to have been due primarily to the failure of the vessel's wireless and to the fact that poor visibility prevented the pyrotechnic signals made by the ship from being seen: There are considerable difficulties in the way of providing electrical communication with Swona Island, on which only one family lives, but they are provided with rockets to call the attention of the coastguard at Broughness in the event of a casualty being observed, and I am examining the possibility of providing them with more powerful sound and visual signals.

ADVISORY COMMITTEE (FISHING FLEET, REPRESENTATION).

Mr. Garro Jones: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether the Merchant Shipping Advisory Committee, to which he will refer the draft regulations for the safety of fishing vessels, contains any member having special knowledge of such vessels or sea-going experience therein; and, if not, whether this deficiency will be remedied?

Mr. Runciman: I understand that certain of the seamen's representatives on the committee have special knowledge of fishing vessels and represent the interests of fishermen. I may add that it is the practice of the Merchant Shipping Advisory Committee when dealing with technical matters to enlist the aid of outside experts not on the committee if that is necessary.

Mr. Garro Jones: While retaining for consultation the outside experts, will the right hon. Gentleman consider adding to this committee some persons who have special knowledge of the peculiar conditions applicable at sea to fishing vessels, which conditions were not taken into consideration when the committee was constituted?

Mr. Runciman: On examining the list of members of the committee I find that at least one has special knowledge of fishing problems.

Mr. Garro Jones: Has that member got practical navigational experience of fishing vessels?

COAL AND OIL FUELS.

Mr. Ridley: asked the President of the Board of Trade what was the registered tonnage of British shipping fuelled by coal and oil, respectively, in the year 1936; and what were the relative figures in the year 1913?

Mr. Runciman: According to the particulars given in the 1936–37 edition of Lloyd's Register Book, there are 9,079 steamers and motor ships of l00 tons gross and upwards on the British Register representing 20,172,983 gross tons. Of this total, 995 were motor ships of 3,482,193 tons gross, and 1,057 were steamers fitted for burning oil fuel of 5,884,162 tons gross. Included in the last-mentioned figure are a number of vessels which use coal or oil alternatively. I regret that comparable figures for 1913 are not available.

SHARE PUSHING.

Mr. Acland: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the continued activities of bucket shops and the period which must elapse before legislation is introduced to control this evil, the Government will consider taking steps to supplement the action taken by certain banks and the unit trusts movement in issuing warnings to investors regarding the dangers of unsolicited investment offers, and will amplify these warnings to the general public?

Mr. Runciman: I will consider my hon. Friend's suggestion.

Mr. Shinwell: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that large numbers of investors have complained of being defrauded by these organisations, and will he not take action to prevent this scandal?

Mr. Runciman: I am quite well aware that a good many people have been defrauded, and our object is to see that the law is carried out.

Mr. Liddell: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the evil referred to in this question has anything to do with the evil of the united front?

Mr. Shinwell: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what steps have been taken to carry out the law?

Mr. Runciman: If the hon. Member cares to put down a question, I will see what information I can get on that point.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY.

ARMY SIGNALS, DEVONPORT (DISCHARGE).

Mr. Jagger: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that H. S. R. Easthope was dismissed last July from the Army Signals at Devon-port after 12¾ years' service; what reason was given; and whether any complaint had been made as to the manner in which he carried out his duties?

The Secretary of State for War (Mr. Duff Cooper): H. S. R. Easthope was not dismissed; he was dicharged after due notice. The reason for his discharge was that "his services were no longer required." The answer to the last part of the question is in the negative.

Mr. T. Williams: Will the right hon. Gentleman explain what is the difference between "dismissed" and "discharged"?

Mr. Cooper: There is no element of blame whatever in discharge. This man's services were no longer required, and he was therefore informed that he was discharged.

Mr. Jagger: Is it the custom to dismiss without any reason a skilled worker like this, after 12¾ years of satisfactory service and in the middle of an armament boom?

Mr. Cooper: It is not customary, but there are exceptions to the general rule.

Mr. Jagger: Can we be told the justification for the exception? That is what I am seeking?

Mr. Cooper: The hon. Member has asked another question, not the question on the Paper. The question which is on the Paper I have answered. The other question which he has asked now is one to which I am not prepared to give an answer immediately. I am quite prepared, on a suitable occasion, to give the hon. Member the information he desires, but I do not think that it is in the interests of anybody that that information should be given.

Mr. Jagger: I asked the reason for the dismissal.

TERRITORIAL HEADQUARTERS, LEIGH-ON-SEA.

Mr. Channon: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that the proposal of the War Office to purchase a plot of land in the residential

area of Leigh-on-Sea for the purpose of erecting a Territorial drill hall for an antiaircraft battery is causing considerable dissatisfaction among the residents; and can he give an assurance that the site will be used only for drilling and that no gun-firing will at any time take place?

Mr. Cooper: Yes, Sir. I understand that there is some apprehension, on the part of the residents in the area, that the proposed establishment there of a Territorial Army headquarters will impair the amenities of the district, and I am glad to have this opportunity of removing a misunderstanding on the point. The site selected is the only suitable one in the neighbourhood. The building to be erected on it is the headquarters of a Territorial Army anti-aircraft gun battery, in which gun drill will be carried out but no gun firing with live or even blank ammunition will take place. The district, therefore, will be no more injuriously affected thereby than the numerous other residential areas, in London and elsewhere throughout the country, where the needs of anti-aircraft defence have rendered it necessary to establish Territorial Army headquarters.

Mr. Channon: While thanking my right hon. Friend for his reply, may I ask whether the alternative sites were all proved to be unsuitable?

Mr. Cooper: Yes, Sir.

Mr. James Griffiths: Why was the same consideration which is now being shown to this place not shown to Lleyn, North Wales, some time ago?

Mr. Maxton: Can the Minister say whether this particular group of Territorials will have opportunities of practising gunnery somewhere, and whether consideration will be given to the residents in that other place?

Mr. Cooper: Every possible consideration is given to the interests of residents wherever gunnery has to take place, but we have to find somewhere for practice in this comparatively small island. The representations of a district are all taken into consideration.

Major-General Sir Alfred Knox: Surely the residents of Leigh-on-Sea ought to be very proud to have a Territorial battery there.

WELLINGTON BARRACKS.

Mr. Petherick: asked the Secretary of State for War when he is going to have Wellington Barracks repainted?

Mr. Cooper: Arrangements are in hand to repaint Wellington Barracks in the spring.

SPAIN.

Captain Ramsay: asked the Secretary of State for War how many military observers representing this country are with General Franco's army and how many with the Government army in Spain?

Mr. Cooper: There is no military observer representing this country with General Franco's army. One of the assistants to the British Military Attaché accredited to France, Spain and Portugal, is at present in Valencia with His Majesty's Chargé d'Affaires in the normal course of his duties.

Captain Ramsay: Is it not a fact that information accumulated from both sides would be of far greater value to the War Office than information from one side only? Will my right hon. Friend say whether, in sending observers to one side only, he followed the advice of his military advisers, or was there pressure from the Foreign Office?

Mr. Thurtle: Is it not a fact that the essential difference is that the Madrid Government is recognised, whereas General Franco's is not recognised?

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND.

SMALLHOLDINGS (HOUSTON MAINS, WEST LOTHIAN).

Mr. Mathers: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether responsibility is accepted by the Scottish Department of Agriculture for the state of the land leased to smallholders at Houston Mains, Uphall, West Lothian, where a deficiency of lime of as much as 5 tons per acre has been disclosed; and what action he proposes to take to remedy this position?

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Elliot): The Department of Agriculture for Scotland accept the full responsibilities of their position as landlords of the farm of Houston Mains, one of the best cropping farms in its locality. So far

as this scheme is concerned, the Department have kept the position under observation in co-operation with the East of Scotland College of Agriculture, and investigations are still proceeding. I am, however, advised that the immediate application of lime in large quantities, irrespective of cropping, is unlikely to be desirable or advantageous to the holders concerned.

Mr. Mathers: Will the right hon. Gentleman keep in mind how this difficulty is adding to the already heavy anxieties of these holders, particularly those who keep poultry; does it not point to the necessity for maintaining the strength of the technical department, which recently dispensed with a chief officer?

Mr. Elliot: I do not think that I necessarily draw that deduction. The Department have kept this position under observation, in co-operation with the highly technical people of the East of Scotland College.

HOUSING.

Mr. Guy: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will refer to the Scottish Housing Advisory Committee the question of the provision by local authorities of housing accommodation for single persons by hostel or otherwise?

Mr. Elliot: No, Sir; I doubt if it is desirable to consult the committee specifically on this question. It is expected that numbers of suitable small houses will become available for single persons as a result of the decrowding operations. I am prepared, moreover, to consider applications for the provision of hostels on their merits.

Mr. Westwood: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that adequate powers are contained in the 1930 Housing (Scotland) Act to provide hostels, and that many local authorities have taken advantage of those powers; will he give instructions to his Department, where such schemes are justified, not to withhold consent for the building of hostels?

Mr. Elliot: I think that is covered by the last sentence of my reply, which was that I was prepared to consider, on their merits, applications for the provision of hostels.

Mr. Guy: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps, if any, have been taken by the Edinburgh Corporation to prepare a scheme for rent rebates under Section 47 of the Housing (Scotland) Act, 1935?

Mr. Elliot: I am informed that the city assessor is, on the instructions of the treasurer's committee of the corporation, at present preparing a report on the subject.

Mr. Westwood: Is the Minister aware that two draft schemes have already been submitted to the authorities and that the longer delay there is in getting schemes sent out by the Department the greater will be the difficulties of the local authorities in applying the schemes to either standardisation of rates or rent rebates?

Mr. Elliot: I am aware of that. I delayed the issue of the draft in consequence of representations by the local authorities that the first draft was unsatisfactory.

Mr. Westwood: What about the second draft?

Mr. J. J. Davidson: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he has made any inquiries, or received any report, from the Glasgow Corporation on the question of housing?

Mr. Elliot: I am in constant touch, either directly or through the Department of Health for Scotland, with the Corporation of Glasgow with regard to housing; and I hope to discuss the whole subject with them as soon as reasonably possible.

Mr. Davidson: Will the right hon. Gentleman discuss at the same time the recent statements and publications made by the Treasurer of the Glasgow Corporation, with a view to ascertaining the truth of those statements made by him?

Mr. Elliot: No, Sir; I shall not investigate any statement made by the Treasurer of Glasgow Corporation, but any of the matters relating to Glasgow housing will be discussed with the corporation as soon as it is possible.

Mr. Garro Jones: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will procure a special report on the general housing situation in Aberdeen and, in particular, on the bad condition in which tenants of the buildings known as the Jute

Works are living; and whether, having regard to the apparent failure of the local housing authorities to realise or to grapple with their housing problem on an adequate scale, he will endeavour to accelerate and enlarge the plans now contemplated by the city council and bring them into closer relation with the urgent needs of the overcrowded and slum-housed section of the population?

Mr. Elliot: I have already arranged for an inspection of the Jute Works to be made this week. With regard to the remainder of the question, while the corporation's output of 614 houses in 1936 represented an increase over the previous year, which was 570, and again over that of the year before, namely, 204, it nevertheless fell short of programme. The corporation have, however, planned to increase this output and hope to double it in the near future. I shall continue to keep in close touch with them to secure that the maximum possible progress is maintained.

JUVENILE COURT, MARYHILL.

Mr. Davidson: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he has made any inquiries, or received any report, regarding the increase of convictions and fines in the juvenile court for the Maryhill division?

Mr. Elliot: My predecessor in office wrote to the corporation on the subject of juvenile delinquency in the city, in view of the attention which had been drawn to it by hon. Members, and by the Chief Constable in his report for 1935. I am informed that, as a result, the problem of juvenile delinquency with relation to the whole of Glasgow, including Maryhill, has been considered by the magistrates, who are taking certain steps to deal with it.

Mr. Davidson: Will the right hon. Gentleman keep in mind that the juvenile crime lists in Maryhill have been far in excess of those of any other Division in Glasgow in respect of the fines inflicted and the convictions made, and will he inquire as to whether what is happening in Maryhill is not because the superintendent of the district has a particular bee in his bonnet with regard to children?

Mr. Elliot: I am quite prepared to ask for the observations of the Corporation on the statistics relating to the hon. Member's Division.

"RED BIDDY."

Mr. Davidson: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether the question of "Red Biddy" drinking in Scotland is still under careful review; and whether he has anything further to report on this question?

Mr. Elliot: As already stated, the matter is under careful review, and I am unable to add to the answer which I gave to the hon. Member last Tuesday.

Mr. Davidson: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman, because of his previous reply to me, to have analysed a half bottle of red wine that I have here; whether he is aware that I obtained this red wine in a public house in Glasgow, that those who obtained it have assured me that it is really very bad, mentally and morally, for the people who take it, and whether he will have this 7d. bottle of concoction investigated or analysed for the benefit of the people?

Mr. Elliot: I will do my best to have analysed any samples of food or drink presented to me by any Member, but I am afraid that there is no analyst's department attached to the Scottish Office, and I shall have to get facilities from some of the great cities of Scotland.

EDUCATION (GLENGORM, MULL).

Mr. Macquisten: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware that there is in Glengorm, Mull, a population of about 40 people, including a number of children of school age; that there is no school nearer than Tobermory which is more than four miles distant; that, owing to the distance and weather conditions, it is impracticable for the children to attend school, who in consequence are not receiving education; and that all the education authority have done up till now is to suggest a conveyance or offer trivial sums to board out the children in Tobermory; and will he therefore have the existing school building in Glengorm opened anew and supplied with a teacher?

Mr. Elliot: I am informed that transport to the Tobermory school has been arranged for the seven children in question; that all of them are taking advantage of this; and that no complaint has been made to the education authority as to these arrangements. The provision of schools for small groups of children in Highland areas is a matter of considerable

difficulty, but I understand that the education authority are to consider this particular case further on 12th February.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL INDUSTRY.

SUBSIDENCE (STOKE-ON-TRENT).

Mr. E. Smith: asked the Secretary for Mines whether he is aware of the effect of mining subsidence in the area covered by the city of Stoke-on-Trent; and will an inquiry be made into it and financial provision made in the proposed Bill for dealing with mining royalties?

The Secretary for Mines (Captain Crookshank): The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. With regard to the second part, I would refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker) on 24th November last, of which I am sending him a copy.

Mr. Smith: Is the Minister aware of the strong feeling among industrialists that before any compensation is paid under the forthcoming Bill dealing with royalties, compensation should be paid for the damage done in industrial centres of this character?

OIL EXTRACTION.

Mr. E. Smith: asked the Secretary for Mines whether the Government contemplate taking steps to secure that the maximum possible amount of oil be extracted from coal mined in Great Britain?

Captain Crookshank: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave on 8th December last to a question by the hon. Member for Houghton-le-Spring (Mr. W. Joseph Stewart).

Mr. Batey: In the answer which was given in December last there was no hope of anything being done. Will the Minister say to-day whether the Government are taking steps to set up a plant for the extraction of oil from coal?

Captain Crookshank: I cannot say about that to-day, but if the hon. Member looks at the reply to which I have referred he will see the present position.

Mr. Batey: If the Minister cannot say anything to-day, can he tell us when he will be able to say anything?

Captain Crookshank: Oh, no.

HARWORTH COLLIERY (DISPUTE).

Mr. Gallacher: asked the Secretary for Mines whether his attention has been drawn to the situation in Harworth mining village arising out of the struggle for union recognition; and what steps, if any, he proposes to take to secure the right of the miners to join their own union and to be represented by the accredited representatives of the union on matters affecting wages and working conditions at the pit?

Captain Crookshank: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. With regard to the second part, I cannot at present add anything to the answer I gave to a question by the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Cape) on 26th January.

Mr. Gallacher: Is the Minister aware that everyone who visits the village of Harworth is affected by the fact that very serious intimidation is being carried on against these miners, and that something should be done to protect them?

Mr. Bellenger: In view of the previous non-committal answers on this question, can the Minister make a statement to the House, if not to-day, at an early date, in view of the very serious implications of this dispute?

Mr. H. G. Williams: Is it true that 700 men at work have been grossly intimidated by those who do not want to work?

Mr. J. Griffiths: Is not the Minister aware that there is a possibility and a danger that, unless this dispute is settled, it may lead to a national strike, and will he not, therefore, take immediate steps to bring about a settlement?

Captain Crookshank: As I said to the hon. Gentleman, I was in touch with the parties concerned, but I do not think the present occasion—if the House will be good enough to trust me in this matter—is a suitable one to make a statement.

SHIP PROPULSION.

Mr. H. G. Williams: asked the Secretary for Mines whether he has considered the report of the marine committee of the Coal Appliances Manufacturers Association on the subject of the use of coal in preference to oil for the propulsion of ships; and state what action he hopes to take in respect of the matter?

Captain Crookshank: Yes, Sir. In the report referred to, the association claim that for certain classes of vessels, coal-fired steam-driven vessels using modem appliances have clear economic advantages over motor ships of the same size and speed. In view of the importance of the matter, both to the coal industry and to the other interests concerned, I have, with the approval of my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, called a conference on 16th February of representatives of the shipping, shipbuilding, marine engineering and coal indusrties, and of certain other interested bodies, to discuss the report and consider whether, by co-operation between all the interests concerned, action can be taken to recover for coal a portion of the bunker trade which has been lost.

BENTLEY COLLIERY, DONCASTER (ACCIDENT).

Mr. Short: asked the Secretary for Mines whether he is aware that Cyril Jobes, aged 14 years and seven months, was fatally injured at the Bentley colliery, Doncaster, on 21st January, and that the accident was due to a moving cage; whether the work upon which he was engaged was suitable for a boy of that age; and whether there was any breach of the Coal Mines Regulations?

Captain Crookshank: Yes, Sir, I am aware of the circumstances of this distressing accident. I understand that the boy's normal work was that of an assistant pony driver, under competent supervision, and in my opinion this was suitable work for a boy. At the time of the accident, however, towards the end of the shift, he had finished his ordinary work and was assisting the onsetter in work which was quite unsuitable. This was done without the permission or knowledge of the responsible officials. I am satisfied that there was a breach of Regulations, and appropriate action has been taken.

Mr. T. Williams: Does the hon. and gallant Gentleman really think that there is any suitable occupation for a boy of 14 in a coal-mine?

CLOSED PITS.

Mr. Short: asked the Secretary for Mines the number of colliery undertakings closed down in Yorkshire and the number of workers affected since 1925?

Captain Crookshank: Since 1st January, 1925, 106 pits in Yorkshire, employing 10 or more men each and in the aggregate 26,100 men, have been closed and not reopened.

Mr. Tinker: asked the Secretary for Mines whether he is aware that Westleigh colliery, employing 1,300 persons, has closed down recently; and what is the cause and if there is any prospect of it reopening?

Captain Crookshank: I am informed that this colliery was closed owing to the expense of working it, but, as the pithead gear is not being dismantled nor the pit notified as abandoned, there is some prospect of it being reopened.

Mr. Tinker: Did the colliery owners send any notification to the hon. and gallant Gentleman's Department before they closed down; and, if so, what steps did the Department take to advise them as to what course they should take?

Captain Crookshank: I should have to have notice of that question.

Mr. Rhys Davies: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that the Wigan coalfield is following the same unhappy course as those of Durham and South Wales?

EXPLOSIONS (INQUIRIES).

Mr. Gordon Macdonald: asked the Secretary for Mines whether, when appointing an inquiry into any future explosion in the coal-mining industry, he will appoint as chairman a person not connected with either side in the industry or with the Mines Department?

Captain Crookshank: This question arises out of the reports of inquiry into the Gresford Colliery disaster, and in view of the fact that, as announced yesterday, it has been decided to set aside a day for the House to discuss these reports, I hope to deal fully with this question in the course of the Debate.

EXPORT TRADE.

Mr. A. Jenkins: asked the Secretary for Mines whether the Government propose to introduce legislation this Session to provide a subsidy from national funds for assisting British coal sold in foreign markets?

Captain Crookshank: This matter is still under consideration by the Government

in consultation with representatives of the coal industry, and I can make no statement at present.

Mr. Jenkins: Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman say when we are likely to have a statement on this matter?

Captain Crookshank: No, Sir.

Mr. T. Williams: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman consult the Nottinghamshire coalowners, who made a profit of 2s. 7¼d. a ton last quarter, as to whether they will make a contribution?

Mr. Austin Hopkinson: Before a decision is reached, will the Government read carefully what the Samuel Report says on the subject of subsidies to the coal industry?

Mr. Jenkins: asked the Secretary for Mines whether his attention has been called to the decline in the quantity of British coal sold to Brazil; whether this is due wholly or in part to the action of the German Government in establishing a blocked currency known as compensation marks which, in effect, substantially reduces German prices below sterling prices; and what steps he proposes to take to ensure fair conditions of trade to the exporters of coal from this country to Brazil?

Captain Crookshank: It is true that up till 1935 exports of United Kingdom coal to Brazil showed a considerable decline, largely due to German competition such as is described by the hon. Member, but I would point out that there was some measure of recovery in 1936, which it is to be hoped will continue. As regards the last part of the question. I am not aware of anything more which can be done at present by the Government to increase the export of British coal to Brazil.

Mr. Jenkins: In view of the fact that the districts in which coal is produced for export have been bearing the burden of maintaining this export trade for a number of years, will the Minister take some steps with a view to spreading the burden of the maintenance of that trade over a greater area?

Captain Crookshank: That sounds like going back to a question which I have already answered.

CANADA (IMPORTS FROM GERMANY).

Mr. J. Griffiths: asked the Secretary for Mines whether his attention has been


called to the fact that in the Dominion of Canada last autumn German coal was sold at two dollars per ton less than Welsh anthracite, and that the imported German coal was sold as Welsh anthracite in violation of the Ottawa Agreement; and whether he will make representations on the matter to the Dominion Government?

Captain Crookshank: I am aware that a quantity of German coal was imported into Canada last year at an exceptionally low price, the German exporters concerned having been able to make use of certain United States credits blocked in Germany; but I understand that, while the quantity involved was considerable, the transaction was an isolated one. With regard to the latter part of the question, I understand that this has been investigated by the Royal Commission recently set up by the Canadian Government, whose published report has not yet reached this country.

SILICOSIS.

Mr. J. Griffiths: asked the Secretary for Mines upon whose instructions His Majesty's inspectors in the Swansea division have ceased to attend at the inquests held to inquire into the death of miners caused by silicosis, in view of Section 84 of the Coal Mines Act, 1911; and whether, as in the 12 months ended 31st December, 1936, 39 anthracite miners were certified by the Silicosis Medical Board to have died of the disease, His Majesty's inspectors will attend such inquests so as to be informed of the facts in these cases, and thus be in a better position to advise as to the steps necessary to prevent these deaths from silicosis?

Captain Crookshank: His Majesty's inspectors make full inquiries into all cases of deaths of miners alleged to be due to silicosis, in order to study the causes and give advice on appropriate preventive measures. But experience has shown that the present methods of inquiry are more effective for these purposes than the attendance of inspectors at inquests, and I do not propose to revert to that arrangement, which ceased in August, 1935, on my instructions. I should add that Section 84 of the Coal Mines Act, 1911, relates to accidents, and not to industrial diseases.

Mr. Griffiths: Does not a case of death from a notifiable industrial disease become

a case of accident when it has been notified; does not the hon. and gallant Gentleman realise that the fact that inspectors have ceased to attend these inquests is taken by the men as an utter disregard by his Department of this very grave problem; and will he not, if only to satisfy the men themselves, who are gravely perturbed by this problem, which is one of the gravest problems in the industry, reverse his decision and ask the inspectors to attend?

Captain Crookshank: I hope the hon. Member will disabuse anyone with whom he is in contact about that matter. My considered opinion is that this is the best method of getting all the necessary information, and I am not, therefore, prepared to alter the arrangement which has been come to so recently. The hon. Gentleman knows as well as I do that we feel great anxiety about silicosis, and will continue to do all that we can to deal with the problem.

Mr. Griffiths: May I ask what are these other methods that are being employed? The hon. and gallant Gentleman has said that the inspectors have ceased to attend inquests; might we be told what the methods are?

Captain Crookshank: The chief medical inspector is in touch with the doctors in the various cases, and can get just as much if not more information than would be obtained by the personal attendance of an inspector at the inquest.

HARWORTH COLLIERY (STATISTICS).

Mr. E. Dunn: asked the Secretary for Mines the monthly output of coal, namely, the actual coal produced, at the Harworth colliery for the months November, December, and January, in the years 1935–36 and 1936–37, and the number of men actually employed below ground for the same period, together with the classification of the workmen?

Captain Crookshank: With the permission of the owners of the colliery, Barber, Walker and Company, Limited, which is necessary under the provisions of Section 21 of the Mining Industry Act, 1920, I am in a position to give this information so far as it is available, and propose, as it involves a number of figures, to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the information:


Particulars of Output and Numbers of Persons Employed in respect of the Harworth Colliery (of Barber, Walker &amp; Co., Ltd.), Nottingham.


—
Average number of persons employed.
Output of coal.


Underground.
Surface.


Four weeks ended—


30th November, 1935
…
…
1,860
402
61,896


28th December, 1935…
…
1,843
441
50,091


Five weeks ended—


1st February, 1936
…
…
1,814
447
73,477


Four weeks ended—


28th November, 1936
…
…
1,331
392
37,720


26th December, 1936
…
…
955
385
22,190


Five weeks ended—


30th January, 1937
…
…
800
374
26,123


No information as to the classification of the workmen is available. Permission by the owners to publish the above figures was made conditional on the addition of the following notes:—


(a) On 16th November, 1936, the colliery started working a single shift and the owners have informed me that the output per man at the coal face is now 10 per cent. greater than a year ago.


(b) The above figures are exclusive of coking employees and of office staff.

SOUTHERN RHODESIA (MINING LICENCES, NATIVES).

Mr. Creech Jones: asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether he has any information as to the number of natives owning a mining-claim licence in Southern Rhodesia or who are working mines to their own profit; and what are the conditions imposed on natives in regard to their qualifications for ownership?

The Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs (Mr. Malcolm MacDonald): I understand that natives who take out a prospecting licence can register mining claims in their own name and then work them for profit. No natives have registered claims, though some have taken out prospecting licences. There are, however, natives, the number of whom is unknown, washing for alluvial gold in native reserves under special grants issued in the name of the District Native Commissioner.

PAN-AMERICAN UNION (IMMIGRATION STUDIES).

Sir Robert Young: asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether the proposal of the Pan-American Peace Conference that other countries should undertake an investigation into their capacity to absorb immigrants has been communicated to the Governments of His Majesty's Dominions;

and whether any steps are being taken in this direction?

Mr. M. MacDonald: According to such information as is at my disposal, the resolution of the Inter-American Conference for the Maintenance of Peace, to which the hon. Member refers, relates to studies to be undertaken by the States members of the Pan-American Union as to their respective ability to receive immigrants, and does not concern the Governments of His Majesty's Dominions.

Sir R. Young: Do I understand that no communications have passed between the right hon. Gentleman and those Governments on the subject?

Mr. MacDonald: That is so.

ROYAL DOCKYARDS (DISMISSALS).

Mr. Short: asked the Prime Minister the number of civil servants engaged in the investigations concerning the dismissal of dockyard workers; the Departments to which they are or were attached; the number of hours expended in the investigation; the total expenditure involved; and upon which Vote will the expenditure be borne?

The Prime Minister (Mr. Baldwin): I do not think it would be practicable—nor would it serve any useful purpose—to work out the details for which the hon. Member asks.

THE CORONATION.

Mr. Mander: asked the Lord President of the Council the number of seats to view the Coronation being erected by the Office of Works; what classes of persons are to occupy them; and who will be responsible for the letting and allocation?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Captain Margesson): I have been asked to reply. I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given by the Lord President of the Council yesterday to the hon. Member for Ealing (Sir F. Sanderson) and to the hon. Member for Southwark, Central (Mr. Day). The question of the allocation of these seats is now being considered by the Coronation Committee of the Privy Council.

Major Stourton: asked the hon. Member for Ipswich, as Chairman of the Kitchen Committee, what catering arrangements are being made within the precincts of the Palace of Westminster for the convenience of Members on Coronation day?

Sir John Ganzoni: Catering arrangements for the convenience of Members on Coronation day have not been finally settled, as the exact amount of accommodation that will be available is not yet definitely known. The committee, however, propose at present to serve breakfasts and also luncheons for a total of 900 Members and their guests to sit down at any one time, in all the usual dining-rooms and certain other public rooms. For these meals tickets will shortly be put on sale in the Members' dining-room. A buffet bar will also be installed in the Terrace smoking-room.

DEFENCE.

Rear-Admiral Sir Murray Sueter: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will consider providing the necessary amount in the forthcoming Estimates to provide for the salary of an under-secretary to assist the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence, and so allow the questions both of co-ordinating supplies and higher administration of the fighting services to be given greater attention?

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Chamberlain): My hon. and gallant Friend's suggestion has been noted, but I am advised that there is at present no need to supplement existing arrangements.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE.

INCOME TAX.

Sir F. Sanderson: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that parents of small means are finding themselves compelled to limit their families due to the high cost of rearing and educating children; and whether he will consider increasing the Income Tax allowance in respect to children in order to encourage larger families in that section of the community where it is most to be desired?

Mr. Chamberlain: I cannot anticipate my Budget statement, but I may remind my hon. Friend that the allowances in respect of children were increased in both the 1935 and 1936 Budgets and are now higher than they ever have been in the history of the Income Tax.

Sir F. Sanderson: Is it not a fact that the Government are gravely disturbed at the continued decline in the birth rate, and does not the Chancellor of the Exchequer consider that by increasing the Income Tax allotments even considerably in respect to children in order to encourage larger families in that section of the community to which my question refers—would be the most practical contribution the Government could make, and will he undertake to give this suggestion his most serious consideration?

Mr. H. G. Williams: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the allowance he made in his last Budget was much more than offset by the fact that certain settlements were made illegal?

Sir F. Sanderson: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that, while an Income Tax allowance is granted in respect of each child who is receiving full-time instruction at a school or other educational establishment, no allowance is granted in respect of the same child if he is apprenticed to a trade, even though a premium equivalent to an educational fee is charged in respect of his training in that trade; and whether he will consider extending the children's allowance to apprentices in all cases where a premium is paid?

Mr. Chamberlain: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. A proposal to extend the children allowance so as to cover the case of apprentices was fully debated on the


Committee stage of last year's Finance Bill, but was not accepted. While I sympathise with the object of the proposal, I am afraid that, for the reasons which I gave on that occasion, I could not undertake to propose an amendment of the law on the lines suggested.

Colonel Ropner: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that there is no provision in the Income Tax Acts for relief in respect of the costs of demolition of property; and whether he will accordingly consider an alteration in the law?

Mr. Chamberlain: The allowance of capital expenditure to which my hon. and gallant Friend refers would be contrary to the general principles underlying the scheme of the Income Tax; and in these circumstances I regret that I am unable to adopt his suggestion.

MINING ROYALTIES.

Mr. J. Griffiths: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether it is the Government's intention to complete the negotiations with the representatives of the royalty owners as to the amount to be paid on the acquisition of the royalties by the State; and whether, in that event, it will be permissible, when the Bill is introduced, to amend the amount agreed to between the Government and royalty owners?

Mr. Chamberlain: Negotiations are still proceeding with the representatives of the coal royalty owners, and I hope that they may result in agreement; as regards the second part of the question, I must ask the hon. Member to await the introduction of the Bill.

Mr. Griffiths: Before the price is finally fixed will the right hon. Gentleman consult the workmen's representatives?

Mr. Chamberlain: I am afraid I cannot give such an undertaking.

CROWN LANDS (REVENUE).

Mr. Walkden: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the amount of revenue from Crown lands during 1936, giving separate figures in regard to the Duchy of Lancaster, the Duchy of Cornwall, and the other Crown lands in Great Britain?

Mr. Chamberlain: The accounts of the revenues of the Duchy of Lancaster and of the Duchy of Cornwall for 1936 are not yet completed, but will be presented to Parliament, pursuant to Statute, in the near future. Crown lands net revenue for the financial year 1935–36 amounted to £1,367,772, and the estimate for the current financial year is £1,350,000.

FAIR WAGES CLAUSE.

Mr. Naylor: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he will consider the advisability of taking steps to introduce similar safeguards into the House of Commons Fair Wages Resolution as have been recently adopted by the London County Council for their fair wages clause, making it compulsory for council contractors to recognise fair conditions of employment in respect to all their employés and not merely to those employés engaged on the council contract?

Lieut.-Colonel Colville: On representations made by the General Council of the Trades Union Congress, the Government are already giving active consideration to this question.

Mr. Mander: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman bear in mind that there are several respects in which the Fair Wages Resolution is not up-to-date, and will he consider the advisability of appointing a committee to look into the matter?

Lieut.-Colonel Colville: That raises a wider question than the one on the Paper.

BECHUANALAND (NATIVES).

Mr. Day: asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs particulars of the amount of assistance given by the Colonial Development Fund towards the measures taken to improve the health and economic conditions of the natives of the Bechuanaland Protectorate; and whether this sum is sufficient to provide for the establishment of new hospitals and the training of native nurses?

Mr. M. MacDonald: The total assistance from the Colonial Development Fund for schemes in the Bechuanaland Protectorate so far approved amounts to £92,228. This sum includes provision for three hospitals. A scheme for training native nurses in the three High Commission Territories has also been initiated as a result of a gener-


ous grant of £10,000 from the Transvaal Chamber of Mines. In addition to this grant and the assistance from the Colonial Development Fund, the general administrative expenditure on medical services in the Protectorate has been substantially increased during the last few years.

Mr. Day: Are there any travelling dispensaries in use in connection with these hospitals?

Mr. MacDonald: They are being established under the provision to which I have referred.

Mr. Day: Are there any in use at the present time?

Mr. MacDonald: Yes, the service is being extended by this provision.

NEWFOUNDLAND.

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs what action the Commission of Government of Newfoundland propose to take respecting petitions for the dissolution of marriage on the ground of misconduct; and whether he is aware of the anomalous position of deserted married persons in Newfoundland?

Mr. M. MacDonald: There is no legislation in Newfoundland providing for divorce, and I have received no proposals from the Governor for the enactment of such legislation. I am not aware to what extent the problem of deserted married persons exists in Newfoundland, but I will ask the Governor for information as to this.

Mr. Sorensen: Will the right hon. Gentleman let me know the result of the communication?

NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: asked the Minister of Pensions whether his attention has been drawn to the hardship involved by the stoppage at the age of 21 years of an allowance to an invalid child of an ex-service man unless both parents are dead; and whether he will consider introducing amending legislation to remove this condition?

The Minister of Pensions (Mr. Ramsbotham): The general principle embodied in the Warrant provisions referred

to is of long standing and has been maintained by every succeeding Government for reasons which, after the fullest consideration, I am satisfied are sound. The position is fully set out in the replies (of which I am sending the hon. Gentleman copies) given in this House by two of my predecessors, the right hon. Member for West Bromwich (Mr. F. O. Roberts) and my right hon. Friend the Postmaster-General. In the circumstances I am unable to recommend the adoption of the course suggested.

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: Will the hon. Gentleman reconsider the matter in view of the fact that the burden on the surviving parent is increased and not diminished when the child is incapable of earning its own living and becomes of age?

Mr. Ramsbotham: If the right hon. Gentleman will study the reasons given in the reply, he will see the difficulty.

Mr. Tinker: May we ask the hon. Gentleman, when we bring genuine cases which require attention, not to hide behind what Ministers have done before?

AFFORESTATION (KIELDER).

Colonel Clifton Brown: asked the hon. and gallant Member for Rye, as representing the Forestry Commissioners, whether he is aware that the Forestry Report of 1917 suggests that, as regards common lands, it should be possible to arrange that the worst land for grazing purposes was taken for planting and the best land was improved for grazing; and if the commissioners will apply this principle at Kielder in future instead of planting up all the best agricultural land and leaving the rest practically sterile?

Colonel Sir George Courthope: The Forestry Commissioners are aware of the paragraph regarding commons in the report referred to. They consider that the principle referred to is not economically applicable to Kielder. The suggestion in the latter part of the question is not in accordance with the facts.

Colonel Brown: In view of the strong objection in this part of Northumberland to the work of the Forestry Commission would it not be better to adopt this policy in order to minimise these objections?

FISH (CONSUMPTION).

Mr. Rostron Duckworth: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether the consumption of fish in value per head of the population shows any increase; and what proportion of such value is represented by the catches of British trawlers?

Mr. Ramsbotham: I have been asked to reply. My right hon. Friend regrets that he is not in a position to state the consumption per head in terms of value. In terms of weight, however, the consumption per head has increased from about 45 lbs. in 1933 to about 48 lbs. in 1936, showing an increase of about 6 per cent. Of this consumption approximately two-thirds were in each case brought in by British trawlers. The remaining third includes fish taken by British vessels by other methods of fishing, especially herrings, and fish landed by foreign vessels or imported from abroad.

SMALLHOLDERS (SHROPSHIRE).

Mr. T. Williams: asked the Minister of Agriculture the reason for the withdrawal of the rent rebate to smallholders by the Shropshire County Council and the saving effected thereby; and the average rent per acre paid by smallholders in the same county?

Mr. Ramsbotham: I understand that in view of the improvement which has taken place in the position of the agricultural industry, the Shropshire County Council felt justified in reducing (but not withdrawing) the allowance from the basic rents of their small holdings. The reduction of the abatement is from approximately 10 per cent. to approximately 5 per cent., and it will effect a saving estimated at £1,030 per annum. The average basic rent per acre paid by smallholders in Shropshire (excluding the holders of holdings under five acres, to whom no abatement is made) is, I am informed, £2 8s. 10d.

Mr. Williams: Are we to understand that prosperity is at long last on its way?

TELEPHONE INSTALLATIONS (SOUTHEND).

Mr. Channon: asked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that when Mrs. Mertens, of 4, Clifton Terrace,

Southend-on-Sea, applied on 25th January at the Southend Post Office for a telephone she was informed that there would be an indefinite delay, perhaps amounting to months, over the installation, and that she was further told that she is the 141st on the waiting list; and will he take steps in the matter?

The Assistant Postmaster-General (Sir Walter Womersley): I am aware of the circumstances at Southend Telephone Exchange. The public response to the recent tariff concessions has far exceeded expectations, and in a number of cases the exchange equipment has proved insufficient to meet the demands, with a result that there must needs be some delay in providing service. My hon. Friend will no doubt appreciate the difficulties of the situation when I explain that the orders for extensions of exchange equipment during the past 12 months have exceeded by over 200 per cent. the corresponding orders for the previous year. I can assure my hon. Friend that the Post Office is fully alive to the need for minimising the inconvenience caused to Mrs. Mertens and other prospective subscribers who are similarly placed and that every effort is being made to expedite the provision of the desired facilities.

BROADCASTING (FOREIGN NEWS).

Captain Ramsay: asked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that the British Broadcasting Corporation have persistently shown bias in their announcements regarding the situation in Spain; and will he remind the directorate of that body that their function is to give the public accurate and impartial information, avoiding propaganda for one side or the other?

Sir W. Womersley: I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the answers given to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for East Leicester (Mr. Lyons) on 25th January and my hon. Friends the Members for Cleveland (Commander Bower) and for Middleton and Prestwich (Sir N. Stewart Sandeman) on 8th February.

Captain Ramsay: Is it not a fact that the crux of the whole matter is the selection, the arrangement and the delivery of these news items that are handed to the British Broadcasting Corporation, and will


my hon. Friend give this subject his close attention in order to find out whether there are not real reasons for the grave dissatisfaction which is common to the whole country on this matter?

Sir W. Womersley: The Postmaster-General and myself are giving close attention to all representations that are made my hon. Members, and we are conveying them to the British Broadcasting Corporation.

Mr. Thurtle: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that many of us are of the opinion that the British Broadcasting Corporation shows too much partiality towards Franco?

Sir W. Womersley: I am well aware that there are differences of opinion with regard to where bias begins and where bias ends.

CARDROOM WORKERS (COMMITTEE).

Mr. Sutcliffe: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is now able to announce the constitution of the committee appointed to ascertain if a workable scheme can be devised for providing compensation for cardroom workers disabled by respiratory illness?

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd): My right hon. Friend much regrets the delay in constituting this committee, but be can assure the hon. Member that he is anxious to set it up as soon as practicable.

AIR RAID PRECAUTIONS.

Mr. Sandys: asked the Home Secreretary whether his Deparament have drawn up a list of medical practitioners who have undergone an approved course of training in the treatment of gas cases; if so, how many there are; whether each has been allocated a prescribed district; and what arrangements have been made to mobilise their services in an emergency?

Mr. Lloyd: Up to the end of January rather over 1,500 medical practitioners had completed courses of anti-gas training given by the 10 Home Office medical instructors originally appointed. Six additional medical instructors are now at

work. As it is the aim to give this training to all medical practitioners in the country who are willing to receive it, there should be no need to allocate individual doctors to particular districts, but lists are available from which it would be possible at any time to notify to local authorities the names of those who had been trained in their respective areas.

Mr. Sandys: Can my hon. Friend say at what rate the practitioners are being trained, and whether all practitioners have been notified of the existence of these courses personally?

Mr. Lloyd: Practitioners have not been individually notified at present, though arrangements are locally available for that purpose. We are training doctors at present at the rate of 2,000 a month.

Mr. Sandys: asked the Home Secretary whether he will issue a White Paper setting forth the measures which are being taken by the Government to extend the fire-fighting services in the event of air attack, in view of the warnings contained in the Riverdale Report?

Mr. Lloyd: The extension of the fire-fighting services to meet the risk of incendiary attack from the air is primarily a matter for each local fire brigade authority. The principal measures being taken by the Government to assist local authorities to this end were summarised in a reply given to my hon. Friend on 2nd December last. My right hon. Friend hopes to issue to local authorities very shortly a memorandum on the whole subject of emergency fire brigade organisation, and a circular indicating the extent to which, and the conditions under which, Exchequer assistance will be granted to fire brigade authorities towards the provision of additional appliances and personnel, in excess of those required for normal peace time purposes, in connection with their emergency fire brigade measures. The memorandum and circular will be placed on sale: I will send copies to my hon. Friend; and copies will be placed in the Library of the House.

Mr. Sandys: Can my hon. Friend say whether a start has yet been made with the manufacture of these emergency appliances, and also with the recruitment of auxiliary personnel which was referred to in the answer of 2nd December?

Mr. Lloyd: Certain experimental apparatus has already been made.

Mr. Sandys: What about recruitment?

Mr. Lloyd: I cannot say without notice.

Mr. Sandys: asked the Home Secretary whether he is satisfied that sufficient powers already exist to enable him to insist that new factories which may be erected shall contain gas-proof and bomb-proof shelters; and, if not, whether the Government intend to ask Parliament for such powers?

Mr. Lloyd: The Air Raid Precautions Department of the Home Office is already in touch with various branches of industry throughout the country on this subject. The Government anticipate that factory employers will be prepared to co-operate in the matter, and no legislation for the purpose is contemplated.

EASTER ACT.

Mr. Mabane: asked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to the fact that this year Easter occurs within a week of the end of winter; whether he is aware of the difficulties this creates for manufacturers and distributors; and whether he will regard this latest example of the disadvantages of a variable Easter as a sufficient reason for recommending that an appointed day should at once be decided for the Easter Act?

Mr. Lloyd: I understand that Easter falls on 28th March this year. On the question of bringing into operation the Easter Act, 1928, I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to the hon. Member for the Colchester Division (Mr. Lewis) on 26th November last.

Mr. Mabane: Can my hon. Friend tell the House whether any further progress has been made at Geneva towards securing an international agreement on this topic; has there been any further discussion?

Mr. Lloyd: I think not.

Mr. Mabane: Yes, there has.

Mr. Lloyd: I thought the hon. Member asked whether any further progress had been made.

SPECIAL AREAS (NEW INDUSTRIES).

Mr. W. Joseph Stewart: asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that, although work may have come to Tyneside, no Government factories have been started in the district; and will he endeavour to have factories established in the area that will continue to produce commodities that are necessary to the every-day life of the people after the rearmament programme is completed?

The Minister of Labour (Mr. Ernest Brown): As the hon. Member knows, it is the declared policy of the Government to encourage the establishment of new industries in all the Special Areas. The Team Valley Trading Estate has already been established in pursuance of that policy and it is the intention of the Government to encourage similar developments to the fullest possible extent.

ROAD WIDENING, MEXBOROUGH.

Mr. T. Williams: asked the Minister of Transport whether the West Riding (Yorks) County Council have yet submitted any scheme to his Department for the widening and improvement of High Street, Mexborough; and, if so, has the scheme been approved and a substantial grant promised towards the cost?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Captain Austin Hudson): A scheme for widening this road has been included in the county council's five-year programme and scheduled for commencement in 1938–39, but the necessary details have not yet been received.

Mr. Williams: As this is one of the most congested shopping streets in Yorkshire, will the Minister use his influence with the county council to bring forward this scheme?

Captain Hudson: I will see what we can do in the matter.

EMPIRE AIR SERVICE (AUSTRALIA).

Captain Peter Macdonald: (by Private Notice) asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether he has any statement to make in regard to the participation of the Australian Commonwealth in the Empire Air Transport Scheme.

The Under-Secretary of State for Air (Sir Philip Sassoon): I am glad to be able to announce that His Majesty's Government in the Commonwealth of Australia have agreed to participate in the Empire Air Transport Scheme under arrangements which will secure the advantages of full co-operation between the Australian National Company and Imperial Airways and of a unified fleet over the whole route between Australia and the United Kingdom, whilst securing to the Commonwealth Government jurisdiction in certain matters such as administrative control over the section of the route between Singapore and Sydney. The agreement covers a period of 15 years, subject to the flying boats proposed for the service proving satisfactory during the first two years and also to the right of either party to withdraw at any time if the scheme is found, in the opinion of a general advisory committee representative of all the Governments participating in the scheme, to be unsatisfactory in operation and incapable of suitable adjustment. The agreement will enable all first class mail from this country to be carried by air to Australia at the postal rate of 1½d. a half 0z. when the scheme is introduced; but the Commonwealth Government propose to retain the surcharge rate of 5d. a half 0z. on mail from Australia subject to their right to adopt the principle of sending all first-class mail by the service as and when they so desire.

Captain Macdonald: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether British machines only will be used in this service?

Sir P. Sassoon: They will be machines belonging to the two companies.

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS (FOREIGN AMBASSADORS).

Mr. Shinwell: May I ask whether your attention, Mr. Speaker, has been directed to a question which was asked by the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Lennox-Boyd) which appeared to contain an improper reference to His Excellency the Russian Ambassador, and whether that question was in accordance with the traditions of the House? Yesterday I had the opportunity of speaking with the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire, and I informed him that I intended to raise this matter to-day. I was under

the impression that he would be here, but apparently I am mistaken.

Captain Ramsay: As my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire does not seem to be here, I know that he would wish me to say, is it not the fact that, seeing that the Russian Ambassador— —[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member called my attention to this matter yesterday, and I have had an opportunity of looking at the supplementary question which was put by the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Lennox-Boyd). The House will remember that on 5th November I gave a Ruling in this House with reference to expressions used in regard to Ambassadors in this country, and said:
It would be most improper that offensive attacks should be made against the representative of a friendly Power."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th November, 1936; col. 261, Vol. 317.]
In the question which the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire put, I cannot find that he made any such reference to the Ambassador. The only mistake, and it is one which I should not have made if I had heard the supplementary question yesterday, is that I should have called him to order because it did not seem to be in any way relative to the question upon the Paper.

Mr. Shinwell: Is not the reference in the question closely related to the recent trials and the alleged executions which have occurred in Russia, and does it not appear from the terms of the question that that was the meaning of the hon. Member's choice of words?

Mr. Speaker: It may have referred to something which has occurred in Russia recently, but there was no reflection on the Russian Ambassador. Reference to what takes place in another country is very often made in this House.

Mr. Thurtle: May I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that there is implicit in this question a suggestion that the Russian Ambassador will shortly be the subject of a trial for conspiracy against his own Government? I submit that the question does bear that interpretation. If that be so, may I suggest that that is a grossly improper and offensive reflection upon the present Russian Ambassador?

Mr. Speaker: Different people understand questions differently. I did not put that interpretation upon the question.

Mr. Sandys: Is it not a fact that conviction by a Russian court in no way implies any guilt?

Mr. N. Maclean: Is it not the fact that dismissal from a Government dockyard does not imply any guilt?

Mr. Speaker: That supplementary question does not seem to have any reference to the original question.

Mr. Magnay: Would not such an implication as the hon. Member for Shore-ditch (Mr. Thurtle) suggests be a compliment?

Mr. H. G. Williams: May I ask your guidance, Mr. Speaker. Six hon. Members prepared a report of a certain visit to another country. A document containing that report was sent to all Members of this honourable House by the Embassy of a foreign Government in this country. Does not that seem very undesirable having regard to our view, the view that you have expressed, that we should not make any references of an

undesirable character to a foreign country?

Mr. Speaker: I am not prepared to give a Ruling on that matter.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. Attlee: May I ask the Prime Minister what Orders he proposes to take in view of the proposed suspension of the 11 o'clock Rule?

The Prime Minister: We desire to obtain the Second Reading of the Reserve Forces Bill, and the Committee stage of the remaining Supplementary Estimates. If there is time, we shall take the Report stage of the Estimates discussed yesterday, and the Committee stage of the British Shipping (Continuance of Subsidy) Bill, and the Third Reading of the Empire Settlement Bill. There is no intention of keeping the House up late.

Motion made, and Question put,
That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[The Prime Minister.]

The House divided: Ayes, 252; Noes, 122.

Division No. 73.]
AYES.
[3.56 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.
Butler, R. A.
Duckworth, G. A. V. (Salop)


Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)
Caine, G. R. Hall
Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side)


Albery, Sir Irving
Campbell, Sir E. T.
Duggan, H. J.


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'kn'hd)
Cartland, J. R. H.
Duncan, J. A. L.


Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir W. J. (Armagh)
Cary, R. A.
Dunne, P. R. R.


Anderson, Sir A. Garrett (C. of Ldn.)
Cayzer, Sir C. W. (City of Chester)
Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Cayzer, Sir H. R. (Portsmouth, S.)
Ellis, Sir G.


Apsley, Lord
Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Elmley, Viscount


Assheton, R.
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgb't'n)
Emmott, C. E. G. C.


Astor, Hon. W. W. (Fulham, E.)
Channon, H.
Emrys-Evans, P. V.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)
Errington, E.


Baldwin-Webb, Col. J.
Clarke, F. E.
Everard, W. L.


Barclay-Harvey, Sir C. M.
Clarry, Sir Reginald
Fildes, Sir H.


Barrie, Sir C. C.
Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)
Fox, Sir G. W. G.


Baxter, A. Beverley
Colfox, Major W. P.
Fremantle, Sir F. E.


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Colville, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. D. J.
Furness, S. N.


Beauchamp, Sir B. C.
Cook, Sir T. R. A. M. (Norfolk, N.)
Ganzoni, Sir J.


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)
Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir J.


Beit, Sir A. L.
Cooper, Rt. Hn. A. Duff (W'st'r S. G'gs)
Gluckstein, L. H.


Bennett, Capt. Sir E. N.
Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.)
Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)


Blair, Sir R.
Ceurthope, Col. Sir G. L.
Grant-Ferris, R.


Blindell, Sir J.
Cranborne, Viscount
Granville, E. L.


Bossom, A. C.
Critchley, A.
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.


Boulton, W. W.
Crooke, J. S.
Gretton, Col Rt. Hon. J.


Bower, Comdr. R. T.
Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C.
Gridley, Sir A. B.


Bowyer, Capt. Sir G. E. W.
Cross, R. H.
Grimston, R. V.


Boyce, H. Leslie
Crossley, A. C.
Guy, J. C. M.


Brass, Sir W.
Crowder, J. F. E.
Hamilton, Sir G. C.


Briscoe, Capt. R. G.
Culverwell, C. T.
Hanbury, Sir C.


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil)
Hannah, I. C.


Brown, Col. D. C. (Hexham)
Davison, Sir W. H.
Haslam, H. C. (Hornoastle)


Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)
De Chair, S. S.
Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)
De la Bère, R.
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.


Browne, A. C. (Belfast, W.)
Denville, Alfred
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.


Bull, B. B.
Dodd, J. S.
Hepburn, P. G. T. Bucnan-


Bullook, Capt. M.
Donner, P. W.
Hepworth, J.


Burgin, Dr. E. L.
Dorman-Smith, Major R. H.
Herbert, A. P. (Oxford U.)


Burton, Col. H. W.
Drewe, C.
Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)




Hills, Major Rt. Hon. J. W. (Ripon)
Maxwell, Hon. S. A.
Samuel, M. R. A. (Putney)


Hoare, Rt. Hon. Sir S.
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.
Sanderson, Sir F. B.


Holdsworth, H.
Meller, Sir R. J. (Mitcham)
Sandys, E. D.


Holmes, J. S.
Mills, Sir F. (Leyton, E.)
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir P.


Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Scott, Lord William


Hopkinson, A.
Moore, Lieut.-Col. T. C. R.
Shakespeare, G. H.


Horsbrugh, Florence
Moreing, A. C.
Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)


Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)
Morgan, R. H.
Shepperson, Sir E. W.


Hudson, R. S. (Southport)
Morris-Jones, Sir Henry
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)


Hulbert, N. J.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)
Smith, L. W. (Hallam)


Hunter, T.
Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.
Somerset, T.


Hurd, Sir P. A.
Munro, P.
Somervell, Sir D. B. (Crewe)


Jackson, Sir H.
Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Jones, H. Haydn (Merloneth)
O'Connor, Sir Terence J.
Southby, Commander A. R. J.


Jones, L. (Swansea W.)
O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh
Spears, Brigadier-General E L.


Keeling, E. H.
Orr-Ewing, I. L.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'l'd)


Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)
Palmer, G. E. H.
Stewart, William J. (Belfast, S.)


Kimball, L.
Patrick, C. M.
Stourton, Major Hon. J. J.


Knox, Major-General Sir A. W. F.
Peake, O.
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Peat, C. U.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Lambert, Rt. Hon. G.
Peters, Dr. S. J.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.


Law, Sir A. J. (High Peak)
Patherick, M.
Sutcliffe, H.


Leech, Dr. J. W.
Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (Padd., S.)


Lees-Jones, J.
Pilkington, R.
Thomson, Sir J. D. W.


Leigh, Sir J.
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.
Touche, G. C.


Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Porritt, R. W.
Tree, A. R. L. F.


Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L.
Pownall, Lt.-Col. Sir Assheton
Tryon, Major Rt. Hon. G. C.


 Levy, T.
Raikes, H. V. A. M.
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.


Lewis, O.
Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.
Turton, R. H.


 Liddall, W. S.
Ramsbotham, H.
Wakefield, W. W.


Llewellin, Lieut.-Col. J. J.
Ramsden, Sir E.
Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan


Lloyd, G. W.
Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)
Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)


Loftus, P. C.
Rawson, Sir Cooper
Warrender, Sir V.


 Lovat-Fraser, J. A.
Rayner, Major R. H.
Waterhouse, Captain C.


Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)

Wayland, Sir W. A


MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C G.
Reid, Sir D. D. (Down)
Wedderburn, H. J. S.


M'Connell, Sir J.
Reid, W. Allan (Derby)
Wells, S. R.


MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Scot. U.)
Remer, J. R.
Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)


MacDonald, Rt. Hon. M. (Ross)
Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)
Ropner, Colonel L.
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir A. T. (Hitchin)


McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.
Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


McKie, J. H.
Rowlands, G.
Womersley, Sir W. J.


Macnamara, Capt. J. R. J.
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.
Young, A. S. L. (Partick)


Macquisten, F. A.
Russell, A. West (Tynemouth)



Magnay, T.
Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Maitland, A.
Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)
Sir George Penny and Lieut.


Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Salmon, Sir I.
Colonel Sir A. Lambert Ward.


Markham, S. F.
Salt, E. W.





NOES.


Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir F. Dyke
Gallacher, W.
MacMillan, M. (Western Isles)


Acland, R. T. D. (Barnstaple)
Gardner, B. W.
Mainwaring, W. H.


Adams, D. (Consett)
Garro Jones, G. M.
Mander, G. le M.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Marshall, F.


Adamson, W. M.
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.
Maxton, J.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)
Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)
Messer, F.


Ammon, C. G.
Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
Montague, F.


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)
Naylor, T. E.


Banfield, J. W.
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Owen, Major G.


Batey, J.
Hardie, G. D.
Paling, W.


Bellenger, F. J.
Harris, Sir P. A.
Parker, J.


Benson, G.
Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Parkinson, J. A.


Bevan, A.
Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.


Bromfield, W.
Hicks, E. G.
Potts, J.


Brooke, W.
Hills, A. (Pontefract)
Price, M. P.


Brown, C. (Mansfield)
Hollins, A.
Pritt, D. N.


Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (S. Ayrshire)
Hopkin, D.
Richards, R. (Wrexham)


Buchanan, G.
Jagger, J.
Ridley, G.


Cape, T.
Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)
Riley, B.


 Chater, D.
Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)
Ritson, J.


Cove, W. G.
John, W.
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Brom.)


Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)
Jones, A. C. (Shipley)
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)


Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Robinson, W. A. (St. Helons)


Day, H.
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Rothschild, J. A. de


Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)
Lathan, G.
Rowson, G.


Ede, J. C.
Lawson, J. J.
Sanders, W. S.


Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough E.)
Lee, F.
Seely, Sir H. M.


Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Leslie, J. R.
Sexton, T. M.


Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)
Logan, D. G.
Shinwell, E.


Evans, E. (Univ. of Wales)
Lunn, W.
Short, A.


Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.
Macdonald, G. (Ince)
Silverman, S. S.


Foot, D. M.
McGhee, H. G.
Simpson, F. B.


Frankel, D.
Maclean, N.
Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)







Smith, E. (Stoke)
Walkden, A. G.
Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)


Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees- (K'ly)
Watkins, F. C.
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


Sorensen, R. W.
Watson, W. McL.
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)
Welsh, J. C.
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)
Westwood, J.



Thorne, W.
Whiteley, W.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Thurtle, E.
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)
Mr. Mathers and Mr. Groves.


Tinker, J. J.
Williams, T. (Don Valley)



Bill read a Second time.

BILL PRESENTED.

AUCTIONEERS AND HOUSE AGENTS (PROTECTION OF PUBLIC AGAINST ABUSES) BILL,

"to amend the law relating to auctioneers, house agents and valuers, to make further and better provision for licensing and registration, and to establish a fund as a guarantee to the public against defaults and malpractices," presented by Sir Reginald Clarry; supported by Commander Bower, Mr. Alan Herbert, Sir George Jones, Mr. Levy, Mr. Roland Robinson, and Mr. H. G. Williams; to be read a Second time upon Monday, 10th May, and to be printed. [Bill 78.]

NEW MEMBER SWORN.

Robert Grant-Ferris, esquire, for the Borough of St. Pancras (North Division).

MARRIAGE BILL.

Reported, with Amendments, from Standing Committee A.

Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be considered upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 77.]

Minutes of Proceedings to be printed.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to amend the law relating to arbitrations." [Arbitration Bill [Lords.]

Orders of the Day — RESERVE FORCES BILL.

Order for Second Reading read.

4.7 p.m.

The Secretary of State for War (Mr. Duff Cooper): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
This Bill is a very short one and admits of a very short explanation. I cannot think that it will promote criticism or arouse arguments. The present system of the Reserve Forces is that when a man joins the Army he undertakes service for a certain period, which is divided into the period that he serves with the Colours and with the Reserve. The period varies in the different branches of the profession, but in the Infantry of the Line, the largest branch and so far as the Reserve is concerned the most important, service is seven years with the Colours and five years with the Reserve. Therefore, automatically at the end of his seven years a man passes on to the Reserve. As the House is aware, the Reserve can be called up only in a major emergency by Proclamation; it cannot be called up without prior information being given to Parliament, and if Parliament is not sitting at the time Parliament has to be summoned.
That is the position with regard to the ordinary Reserve. But there is another branch of the Reserve, the "A" Reserve. Men can volunteer on leaving the Colours to join that branch of the Reserve. If they do so, they are paid 6d. a day extra during the period of their service with "A" Reserve. In return for that emolument they hold themselves liable to be called up for any minor emergency which does not involve a declaration or danger of war, and they can be called up by private application—letters to their own addresses—and if Parliament is not sitting it need not be recalled, though Parliament has to be informed at the first available opportunity. The two occasions when "A" reservists have been called up in recent history were in 1927, in connection with the trouble in Shanghai, China, and last year in connection with the disturbances in Palestine.
But there is a statutory limitation with regard to "A" reservists. It is laid down

by law that they can belong to the "A" Reserve only for a period of two years immediately following the date when they leave the Colours. If a man joins the "A" Reserve when he leaves the Colours he can be a member for two years, but if he does not wish to join the Reserve and decides to do so a year later, he can be a member of the Reserve for only one year. It is that statutory limitation on the "A" Reserve which is the cause of the present Bill. Last year when the "A" reservists were called up it was found that the whole of the Infantry of the "A" Reserve were required, and even then there was no excess in the numbers that returned to the Colours. If any other emergency had arisen in any other part of the world, necessitating the sudden dispatch of a small contingent which it would have been desirable to have had brought up to establishment by calling up "A" reservists, there would not have been any "A" reservists available so far as the Infantry was concerned. Therefore, it is our desire to increase, if possible, the number of this branch of the Reserve.
This Bill, which is really confined to one operative Clause, seeks to increase the numbers by two means, although by only one provision. It seeks to increase the period during which these men may serve, and at the same time to increase the field of recruitment from which they can be drawn. If the Bill is passed it will in future be possible for a man to belong to the "A" Reserve for five years instead of for two years, and men who are not now members of it and have already left the Colours for two years and cannot possibly now be recruited to the "A" Reserve, will then be available for the remaining three years of the five years after leaving the Colours. It may be said in criticism that if men hesitate to undertake the obligation to join the Reserve for two years, still more will they hesitate to undertake the obligation for five years. But that is not a valid criticism, because in fact any man may resign from the "A" Reserve by giving three months' notice. Therefore, the only obligation a man undertakes when he joins is for a period of three months; that is the only thing to which he pledges himself. So he is not in any way undertaking a bigger obligation now when he joins the "A" Reserve than he would have done in the past. He will still be in the position that


he can resign from the "A" Reserve on giving three months' notice, but he will be in a stronger position because he will be able to draw the additional emoluments for a period of five years instead of for a period of two years.
I ought to make it plain perhaps that though the Bill mentions five years, that is the maximum period for which men could, if this Bill is passed, be called upon to join the "A" Reserve. It will be in the discretion of the War Office to shorten that period necessary. If sufficient men come forward and we can have what we need, we can reduce that period to four, three or two years. It is obviously desirable that the men who belong to that Reserve should have left the Colours for the shortest time possible, for the longer they have been away from the Army the less efficient they are likely to prove as soldiers. The old statutory rules and provisions which affected the "A" Reserve in the past will not be altered in any way; that is to say, the "A" reservists can be used only for emergencies outside the country and cannot be called up for any special duty inside the country.

Mr. Lees-Smith: How many are there?

Mr. Cooper: The total number at present is 2,900 odd—just under 3,000. Of those 2,482 were called up for Palestine. They represented the whole of the Infantry reservists, but not the Artillery reservists.

Earl Winterton: My right hon. Friend is now dealing with all the reservists. How many "A" reservists are there in the whole Army?

Mr. Cooper: A little under 3,000 in the "A" Reserve. I do not know whether it is in order to say anything with regard to those who have returned from Palestine, but if the House will allow me, I am quite prepared to give some information on that matter. There are more of these men in employment to-day than there were when they were called up last September. I hoped to be able to give later figures, but these will not be ready till to-morrow. I have not had a single instance brought to my knowledge of any case in which a man was not taken back by his employer or in which any hardship was inflicted. I had one case of a municipal authority

who would not take a man back, but when I communicated with the authority privately, the matter was put right immediately. He was only a temporary employé, but they took him back and found another job for him at once.
It is the same throughout the country. I have not received from the men themselves or from any hon. Member any complaint of men not being re-employed immediately. I think the House may rest assured that those who undertake the obligation to serve in the "A" Reserve, who are called up—they have been only twice called up in the history of the Reserve, and they may never be called upon to fulfil the obligation, and they are to be paid 6d. per day while they are fulfilling this duty—are given extremely friendly, I will not say preferential, treatment when they return because all employers and municipalities are most anxious that they should not suffer for having done this duty. I hope that the Bill will enable us to bring up the "A" Reserve to a little greater strength than it is at the moment, realising that an emergency such as that which occurred last year may occur again, and that it has an important part to fulfil in our defences.

Mr. Duncan: What is the strength to which the right hon. Gentleman wants to bring up the "A" Reserve?

Mr. Cooper: I should like to see its strength doubled. There is a statutory limit of 6,000 under the Reserve Forces Act, 1907, and we should like to bring it up to that limit. It is not proposed to increase the establishment of 6,000.

4.19 p.m.

Mr. Shinwell: Although the right hon. Gentleman has given the House a lucid explanation of the provision of the Measure, there are several matters which call for further explanation. It is quite clear from what he has said that the main purpose of the Measure is to increase the size of the forces. He spoke of the number of men who were liable for service under the original Act, and he has now said that he wants to double the numbers of those who are so liable. Therefore, the main purpose is to increase the number of men who will be liable for service. The first thing I want to say is that if the War Office have any plans to submit to the House and the country in relation to military organisation, they should


do so, but not in this piecemeal fashion. This matter is closely related not merely to events in Palestine but to the general world situation and the armament policy of the Government. This is not an appropriate occasion to discuss that matter, but we are entitled to express an opinion as to the means employed by the War Office to bring the Service under the control of the right hon. Gentleman up to strength. I suggest that the War Office should make up its mind as to what it wants.
There is a dual policy operating. Men are required for police purposes in places like the North-West frontier of India, and men are being trained for the purposes of a major war. What is it that the War Office desire? Do they want an Army for one purpose or for the other, or for both, and is the training of the men to be determined by one category of service or by the other? Obviously there must be a difference in the training of men for police purposes and for a modern major war. The House has some ground of complaint as to the piecemeal methods employed by the War Office. The right hon. Gentleman has made several speeches on the question of recruiting and it has been suggested, even in some military circles, that he himself is the greatest obstacle to recruiting. I do not share that view—that prejudiced opinion. There are disgruntled men in the Service who are on half-pay and who, no doubt have a bone to pick with the right hon. Gentleman. They have their grievances against the War Office, but on the major question as to what is to be the military policy of the War Office the House is left in the dark. Instead of coming forward with a Measure of this kind, it would have been more appropriate if the right hon. Gentleman had submitted a plan which the House could discuss. I agree that this is not the time to discuss the general proposition, but I hope he will be able to express an opinion.
There are several minor matters relating to this Measure upon which I should like the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman. To begin with, in the original Act, which is not amended by the present Measure, the liability is conditioned by personal agreement. If the men agree to serve they may be called upon to do so; but if they refuse to agree, the liability disappears. I understand that is the position.

Mr. Cooper: indicated assent.

Mr. Shinwell: The first question I want to ask is, what is the inducement offered to these men to agree? The right hon. Gentleman says it is 6d. a day. I say, without any hesitation or qualification, speaking for this party, irrespective of our views on armaments or the military policy and foreign policy of the Government, that 6d. a day is not a proper inducement for the men. It is not in any sense the right kind of remuneration, having regard to the liability they are called upon to undertake. I say, further, that as regards all the lower ranks the rate of pay is insufficient. Certainly in this case we cannot regard 6d. a day as a proper inducement. I do not know how many men the right hon. Gentleman will obtain but in our judgment that is not enough. There is something rather more important. We have heard something from the right hon. Gentleman of the situation which arose in Palestine. Many men returned to this country without employment, although it is true that many of the men were unemployed before they left for Palestine. They still remain in that position. Men who are reservists and are unemployed, and who are under this liability, if they agree to serve receive 6d. per day; and this is taken into consideration by the Unemployment Assistance Board in assessing the amount of allowance they shall receive. In other words, reservists called upon to undertake this extended liability, which, by the way, means active service abroad, are subjected when unemployed to the tender mercies of the means test.
I submit that men who are called upon to undertake a liability of this kind, including active service abroad with all its burden and responsibilities, ought not to be subjected to such an inquisition, and I ask the right hon. Gentleman to give that matter his consideration. Much will depend, as far as our decision is concerned, on what the right hon. Gentleman has to say in reply to that question. The right hon. Gentleman has told us what happened to the Palestine reservists. What is to happen to "A" reservists under this extended liability? If they are sent on active service and return what guarantee is there that they will return to their previous employment, if they had any? There is no guarantee that the War Office will make an effort to provide employment for them. We cannot play


fast-and-loose with men who are rendering a national service. I do not put national service of this kind higher than national service in the industrial field, but, nevertheless, it is important in the eyes of the right hon. Gentlemen and hon. Members opposite, and in these circumstances we are entitled to ask what assurances there are that these men are to be properly treated when they return from active service.
This is not an occasion to discuss the major questions which arise out of War Office policy; that will come at a later stage, but may I observe that I had a period of service at the War Office in a role previously filled by the right hon. Gentleman himself, and in a very intensive experience of 12 months I learnt a great deal about War Office conditions. In my judgment it requires reorganising from top to bottom.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member is raising a subject which may lead to a long Debate.

Mr. Shinwell: I entirely agree, and I will respect your ruling and therefore will not say what I was going to say, but I feel it is right that the right hon. Gentleman and the War Office should know what some of us think about the machinery at the War Office. I make no attack on the personnel of the Army Council—

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member is now pursuing a subject which cannot be discussed on this Bill.

Mr. Shinwell: In that case I will make no criticism whatever at this stage. Meantime, I ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider the points I have put before him. At first sight it would appear that there is nothing in the Measure at all, but there are these minor though very important points from the standpoint of these reservists which fall to be dealt with, and of these matters we require some further explanation.

4.30 p.m.

Earl Winterton: I agree to some extent with the earlier part of the speech of the hon. Member for Seaham (Mr. Shinwell), though naturally I take an entirely different point of view from his. No doubt this Bill is introduced because of the attention focussed on the subject by

recent events in Palestine. As you, Sir, have just pointed out in regard to the hon. Gentleman's speech, we are not entitled to discuss the whole question of recruiting, but I must make this observation, that if it had not been for the appalling state of recruitment in which we find ourselves, the calling up of the "A" class reservists in the Palestine troubles would not have been necessary, and had it not been for that calling up, the position would not have been drawn to the attention of this House and of the War Office. Therefore, I must make this criticism of the Bill, though I support it. What we want to discuss in this House, and what we cannot now discuss, is the policy of recruitment for the Army as a whole, and not merely the question of the reservists. The two questions are inextricably intermingled, and I cannot understand the long delay on the part of the Government in making announcements which we know are eventually going to be made. Meanwhile the situation is a very grave one, and there is no harm in calling attention to this fact, that had the Army been in possession of the necessary personnel at the time, there would not have been any necessity to call up the reservists to deal with the troubles in Palestine. The effect of so doing was to do damage to our prestige in the Near East, for it naturally made people say, "Such is the state of the British Army that they have to call up their reservists." I, therefore, support the Bill, but perhaps I may have my right hon. Friend's attention when I say that, as an old Member of this party, I earnestly ask the Government at the earliest possible moment to bring in their Bill to deal not only with the Reserves, but with the whole question of recruitment for the Army, and to try to do away with the grievous situation which now exists.

4.33 p.m.

Sir Hugh Seely: I, also, agree with what has been said, as one who supports this Bill, not because it has been asked for as a necessity because of what happened in Palestine, but because we feel dissatisfied as to why this necessity should arise. It must cause a great deal of feeling, and it is not all right with the recruitment when you have to keep on bringing the forces up to strength. The hon. Member for Seaham (Mr. Shinwell) seemed to me to be like Bernard Shaw in one of his plays,


where he says that the British soldier can stand up to anything except the British War Office. Although this is not the moment for us to criticise the War Office, yet I think that everyone must feel that this Measure is a very small one indeed for dealing with a very big subject. If one looks back to the Debate which took place in 1898, one sees that this Measure was then criticised, because it was said that it would be a complete failure from the Army point of view. I do not think it was a failure—it was a success—but undoubtedly nowadays it has become a failure, and in order to get up the numbers, though not to increase the Army, as the hon. Member for Seaham seemed to think it was an attempt to do, they have had to take in some way rather a niggling point in dealing with a very big question.
There was one point dealt with by the hon. Member for Seaham, and that was as to the reason why the present system has failed and whether it does not lead to the question of the means test and the difficulties about this 6d. a day. It is no good merely thinking that it is because people do not like the Army. There may quite easily be something which is in their life outside being in the Army and which affects them to such a degree that they do not want to continue in the Reserve. There is no doubt that we ought to have more information as to how this 6d. a day does affect people who are on the means test, because it is a very live question to-day and was certainly not one when this Measure was first introduced in 1898, nor again in 1907. Other questions were asked as to the future. We were told that the Reserve numbers 2,900 now and that the Secretary of State hopes to get up to the full strength. I hope he does, but one does feel that he might have dealt a little more fully with the difficulties, as to why this has not brought us up to the strength needed, not merely by extending and thinking that that is going to produce it, because you get rather more people into the scheme. As the Noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) said, so do we here, that we think the whole question of recruiting, as soon as it is gone into carefully, needs revision, and the sooner the promised reforms can be produced the better it will be for the efficiency of the Army and for really dealing with the matter and not raising it on this single, rather small, point.

4.37 p.m.

Captain Macnamara: I rise to support this Bill, because I realise that it is a matter of urgency, and I do not agree with the hon. Member opposite that it is necessarily piecemeal legislation. The Minister for War is going to deal with the Army Estimates very soon, and I do not think we can expect him to anticipate now what he is going to say then on the whole question of recruiting. We know that he is going to bring in certain reforms—at least, we all hope so—and I do not think we can expect him to anticipate them now. At the same time, I agree that it is absolutely necessary, owing to what was revealed by the urgency of the Palestine operations, to increase the Army Reserve, and I shall support this Bill. I would like to point out to the hon. Member opposite, on the question of the amount of 6d. a day, that this is a voluntary Reserve. The amount is only 6d. a day, it is true, but no man is compelled to extend his service in this Reserve unless he wants to. It is purely voluntary. Secondly, I would point out that that 6d. will bring in roughly about £9 10s. a year, which is two or three times the amount of the Territorial bounty. If you look back over the last 30 years or so and see the number of times on which the Army reservists have been called out, and compare it with the number of times on which the Territorials have been called out, you will see that the extra payment for the Army reservists is in about the right proportion to the amount that the Territorials are getting in their bounty; and both are absolutely voluntary, so that I do not think the money factor in this case is out of proportion.
I think, however, that the Minister would be very wise, if he could do so, to look into the question of the reservists coming back from their service when they are called up, as they were in the Palestine affair recently. I think that above all what is necessary is a period of full pay for about two months, or in any event six weeks, after they have been demobilised. For instance, the men brought back from Palestine should have been kept on full Army pay with Army rations for that period.

Mr. Shinwell: Does not the hon. and gallant Member realise that if they received full pay and were still unemployed,


that amount would be taken into account by the Unemployment Assistance Board?

Captain Macnamara: Yes, I do realise that, but I am trying to point out that what is required is that for about six weeks after they are demobilised they should be exceedingly well treated financially by the War Office, so as to give them a chance of taking their place again in civilian life. There is one other point that I would like to bring out. I think this Bill has shown us one serious lack in the question of our Reserve forces, and that is that we have no military police force in this country. It should not really be necessary for us to be asked for these powers under this Bill, but for the fact that we do in this country lack something that should take the place of these Reserves for which we are being asked. Every other country in the world—Italy, Spain, Germany, Canada even; it does not matter what country—has some form of military police force, and such a force could have been sent to Palestine to do the job there. I think we do need some form of military police force here.

Earl Winterton: Some of us were instrumental after the War in drawing up a scheme for some such a force, which would have been stationed in Egypt and which could doubtless have dealt with all the troubles in Palestine.

Captain Macnamara: I am glad to have my Noble Friend's support, but I think we need some form of carabinieri, or police force. I am going to make what is perhaps rather an odd suggestion. It is that we should have some form of extension of the Royal Marines, who would be able to take on just that kind of trouble in Palestine. If we had that, we should not need to have this Bill for the extension of the Reserve Forces, but in the emergency with which we are faced at the moment I shall support this Bill.

4.43 p.m.

Mr. Maxton: Several speakers in this Debate have referred to the petty nature of this Bill, but it is exactly its very small nature that arouses my interest, and indeed my suspicion, and that has made me do a certain amount of study into a branch of political work that I have not previously done. I gathered from my study of it that every man who has served a period of time in the Army goes on to the Reserve and is liable to be

called up at any time during the period of his Reserve service, admittedly not for any or every purpose, but he is liable to be embodied for regular, day-to-day service if he is a member of the Reserve. That right to call them up is, I understand, in the discretion of Parliament, and the big distinction made between this lot of men and the general Reservists is that the War Office is claiming power and has the power to call up these men at any moment at which it desires them and for the full purposes to which a serving soldier may be put. I agree with the hon. Member for Seaham (Mr. Shinwell) that there seems to be room for some investigation as to why the appropriate number of men would not engage on the one-year basis. The Minister now says that, because the men finishing their time would not take on the additional two years of responsibility, he will see whether he can get them to take on five years' responsibility.
I want to ask whether every man finishing his period with the Colours had the offer to re-engage in the Special Reserve. Was every man in every branch of the Service, when his period of Regular Service expired, asked whether he was prepared to continue in the Special Reserve? If so, was any investigation made as to why a very large proportion of them refused to have anything to do with it? I should have thought that the House might have been informed as to why men who had done five years in the Regular Army and who had no special prospects of a decent appointment in the ordinary civil life of the community, were so disinclined to take on one or two more years' responsibility, which was in fact, as the right hon. Gentleman explained, only a three months' commitment, since the men could always withdraw at any moment—and I understand can still withdraw at any moment—by giving a written intimation of three months' duration. Why is it that men who had done five years in the Regular Army wanted to get as far away from it as they could get and were not prepared to take on the additional limited responsibility for a period of three months?
I think the money aspect is certainly one of the considerations. The hon. and gallant Member for Chelmsford (Captain Macnamara), who has more knowledge of these things than I have, thought that 6d. a day was adequate remuneration. I would like to have some information on


the point raised by the hon. Member for Seaham and by other hon. Members. I know of scores of cases where the reservist was a member of a family group that was submitted to the means test, but where he himself was the unemployed person, I should have imagined that, during the period of his first 12 months out of the Army, he would hive been on standard benefit, and would have been entitled to the whole of the standard benefit and his Reserve pay on top of it. At a later period his Reserve pay stops, and that seems to me to be a double menace. In any case 6d. a day, or £9 a year, seems to me to be a trivial offer to make to a man. I do not know what it costs to maintain an infantryman when he is in the Regular Army, but it must be somewhere in the neighbourhood of £100 a year when one considers that he has to be housed, fed and clothed. Here we have a cheap soldier who, for the first 12 months after he has left the Army, must be practically as efficient, for all effective purposes, as he was during the years of his service. The right hon. Gentleman wants to get for £9 a year what he got for £100 a year. He is trying to run the Army "on the cheap," and I think the remuneration should be substantially increased.
There is another point I wish to raise. I was glad to have the assurance of the right hon. Gentleman that the majority of the men who were called up for service in Palestine have been reabsorbed into civil employment, but I gathered from his remarks that it was more by luck than by good guidance, more because of the general decency of the employers of the men concerned than because of any steps that were taken by the War Office to ensure that they should get back into their employment. To turn to the point I want to raise: What is the position of the men who went out there and became casualties? One of the men killed in Palestine was a native of my home town in Scotland, and until a week or two ago—it may have been changed since then—his parents, who were to a certain extent dependent upon him, had received no notice from the War Office of any gratuity, compensation or pension that would be paid to them, as would have been the case if the man had been engaged in a major war. I would like to ask the spokesman for the War Office whether, if

these men called up for active service meet with death or with serious injury, they and their dependants will be treated, in the matter of pensions, gratuities and allowances, in precisely the same way as were those who took part in the Great War.
I know a case, which I can only cite as an example, of a man in the Navy, who was called up from a voluntary Reserve for service in the Navy in the Palestine operations. He was a volunteer in the same sense as these men are volunteers. He left his civil employment and was taken on as a perfectly fit man, and he went out and did his 12 months' service. He came back a complete physical wreck, although in the beginning he had been passed as physically fit. The Admiralty have said that they can do nothing for him. They have sent him a letter telling him to get into touch with the local authority for treatment for tuberculosis. He has no job, he is without a penny of gratuity, he is without any hope of treatment at the expense of the Admiralty, and he is turned back on to the local services in the city of Glasgow. That is not the way to treat men if you want them to feel that they can confidently place their lives and services in the hands of the Departments of State dealing with national Defence.
I want an assurance that men volunteering in this way for an additional period in the Reserve Forces of the Crown will be treated with the same consideration, should anything happen to them, as would be given to them if they were in Regular Service and as was given to men who met death or injury in a war that was attracting more of the interest of the nation and in which larger numbers of people were involved. I agree with the remarks of other hon. Members who have said that this is an instalment plan for increasing the strength of the armed Forces of the Crown, and I agree that this is not the way to do it. We ought to hear in this House what is the whole scheme. What is the intention of the War Office with regard to recruitment? What is their intention with reference to the total available Fighting Forces? Let us have a complete proposition, and let us examine it in order to see whether it is a reasonable proposal or an unreasonable one. This Bill fails to give us any complete picture of what it is intended should be done.
There is one other minor point on which I would like to have an answer. Again I plead complete ignorance of the technical side of this matter, but I was struck by the fact that the right hon. Gentleman said, in his opening statement, that a large proportion of these men belong to the infantry of the line. I think that in the figures he gave he showed that all of the 3,000 men were infantry of the line except a mere hundred or two. Does he regard that as satisfactory? I had understood that army organisation called for infantry, artillery, and Army Medical Corps in proportion. It seems to me that it is all lopsided to have 2,000 or 3,000 infantrymen and not to have the other men who form the ancillary services without which the infantrymen cannot operate effectively.
Is the 6d. a day bribe or tip, or whatever it is, the same for all sections of the Army? Is the reservist's pay of 6d. the same for an artilleryman, a Royal Army Medical Corps man and an Army Ordnance man? Is it a flat rate or is there any attempt to make the pay in ratio to what was the pay of the man in the particular branch of the Service in which he was serving? Is the right hon. Gentleman endeavouring to see that the 6,000 additional soldiers for which he is asking the House to-day—[An HON. MEMBER: "Three thousand additional soldiers."] I do not think I am putting the matter unfairly when I say 6,000 additional soldiers, because the right hon. Gentleman is not getting his men regularly under the existing plan and the numbers seem to be diminishing. He is asking for a sure 6,000 instead of an indefinite figure which at this moment is under 3,000. When he asks for 6,000 men, is he taking any steps to see that those men come from different branches of the Service in appropriate proportions, or is it infantrymen alone that he is trying to get? Those are the points on which I wish to have an answer, particularly on the one relating to the right to a casualty pension or allowances for dependants and relatives in the event of injury in a war. I want answers to those questions before I can know whether I will support or oppose this Measure.

4.58 p.m.

Mr. Duggan: I hope the House will forgive me if, for a moment or two, I discuss the provisions in the Bill itself rather than the general question of re-

cruiting in this country. Primarily this is a Bill the only purpose of which is to increase the number of people in the Reserve. How hon. Members regard the emolument of 6d. a day as not really so important as how the men themselves regard it. That we shall be able to tell in a year or so from the response which they make to this plan, and we shall then know whether or not 6d. a day is regarded by them as being an adequate attraction for staying on for an extra five years. It is true, as the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) has said, that we are asking people who have already arranged to be on the Reserve for two years to extend that period by a further three years, but I do not see any reason why we should not allow those people who are willing to serve another three years, to do so, rather than to have some other scheme which would be either more expensive or possibly less purely voluntary in order to increase the numbers.
The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War ought to derive considerable encouragement from the fact that most of the criticisms against the Bill to-day have been that it is too small and does not go far enough. The hon. Member for Seaham (Mr. Shinwell), who spoke for the Labour party, criticised the Bill as being piecemeal. I can readily understand the embarrassment of a party which, as long as a year ago, was raising in the country the cry that we were out for conscription, and which now finds, at the end of a year, it is only faced with so mild a Measure, out of which it is not able to make any party capital. Others, not necessarily those holding Labour views, have criticised the Measure on the ground that it does not go far enough. If the Secretary of State is to draw the conclusion that he has hitherto not laid sufficient emphasis on the question of recruiting, then we hope that his efforts will be augmented, and that people will now be treated to a real recruiting campaign. It seems to me that before we spend money on any large scale or go in for any form of compulsion, we ought to do our best to exploit the resources which the country already possesses in willing service. We already have a number of men on the Reserve who are prepared to serve for the longer period. If we can, without any great additional expenditure, see to it that these people serve the longer period under purely


voluntary conditions and if they are satisfied—as will soon be shown by their response—with the emoluments paid to them, then it seems to me that this is a simple and indeed very small scheme and one to which the House should willingly agree.

5.3 p.m.

Mr. Bellenger: The Secretary of State said he thought the Bill would provoke no controversy and went on to state that the infantry of the line constituted the most important part of the Service. As an old artillery man I venture to doubt the accuracy of that statement, but I do not propose to discuss it, otherwise I might provoke considerable controversy.

Mr. Cooper: I stated that they were the most important part of the "A" Reserve, being the largest part. I do not wish to be committed to the other statement attributed to me by the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Ede: It is very true though.

Mr. Bellenger: In any case, I will not go into details on the matter, otherwise I might have a great deal to say. I do not know what hon. Members who support the Government think of the apologetic manner in which the Secretary of State introduced the Bill. If it is necessary to have a standing Army, surely it is also necessary to have adequate reserves for that Army. There does not seem to be any reason to apologise for this proposal and to say that the reservist can give three months' notice if he wants to repudiate his contract. It is essential that not only our reserves but also our main forces should be up to establishment and although it would be out of order to go into the question of strength to-day, I think we are entitled to refer to the subject in passing, when we are discussing this Measure. The hon. and gallant Member for Chelmsford (Captain Macnamara) seemed to suggest that this was a matter of no urgency—that is, the general subject of recruiting—and rather implied that it could wait until the right hon. Gentleman had introduced his Estimates. I submit that it is a matter of grave urgency and that it is not only a question of providing a certain force for Palestine. Events in Central Europe must indicate to hon. Members that the whole question not only of the Reserve but of the main body of the Defence Forces is one

of great urgency, and I sincerely hope that at an early date the right hon. Gentleman will indicate his proposals for bringing the Army up to its proper establishment.
The point made by the hon. Member for Seaham (Mr. Shinwell) on the question of reservists' pay is a concrete illustration of the reason why the right hon. Gentleman has not been able to keep the Reserve Force up to strength. If 6,000 is the figure laid down in the original Act, why has the Reserve been considerably under strength during all this time? It ought not to have needed the Palestine trouble to draw attention to this state of things. The right hon. Gentleman himself mentioned that in 1927 there was trouble in China and that it was then indicated that we had not sufficient Reserves to provide the force necessary to protect British interests in China. I submit that the right hon. Gentleman ought to have raised this matter far earlier instead of leaving it until this late hour.
As regards this retaining fee of 6d. a day, do hon. Members really imagine that a man is going to prejudice his job, which he has probably had hard work in finding, and prejudice his chances in the future, for the sake of 3s. 6d. a week? This figure has remained stationary for a number of years. We have increased the rates of pay in civil life and even in the Army itself. Why, then, has this 6d. a day not been increased? Surely on the ground of the increased cost of living alone, it ought to have been raised. Further, the question of the reservists' meagre pittance being taken into account by local authorities or public assistance committees when considering relief is one which ought to occupy the right hon. Gentleman's attention. I believe there is considerable agreement among Government supporters with the view of hon. Members on this side regarding that question, and I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman should take this factor into account and see whether we cannot effect some amelioration of the conditions under which reservists suffer when, unfortunately, they are compelled to apply for assistance. There is one point in the wording of the Bill to which I would call attention. Clause I provides
The liability to be called out … may if it is so agreed extend to the first five years,


I suggest that there should be inserted the words "If so agreed by the reservist." I think that would better express the Government's intention. If the reservist agreed to extend the liability to the five years then this provision would come into operation. It may not be a large point but I think it would make for accuracy and clarity if those words were included. I, personally, and I think I can speak for all my colleagues on this side of the House, am in agreement with the general principle of the Bill. If it is considered necessary to have 6,000 reservists in case of emergency then we ought to have that number but I think we have submitted one or two substantial points on the Bill which are worthy of the right hon. Gentleman's attention.

5.10 p.m.

Sir William Davison: Had this Bill been a Compulsory Service Bill or a Conscription Bill the Opposition could hardly have expressed more anxiety about it. The majority of the speeches this afternoon seemed to me to be wide of the proposals which are before the House. The hon. Member for Seaham (Mr. Shinwell) and the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) both described it as a Measure for increasing the strength of the Army on a side-issue. But the Bill does not increase the strength of the Army by even one man. All it does is to enable certain men who are already on the Reserve to say voluntarily that they will continue for a certain period under the liability to be called up without the assembling of Parliament.

Mr. Shinwell: The right hon. Gentleman himself admitted that he proposed to increase the number of those so liable from 3,000 to 6,000.

Mr. Cooper: To transfer 3,000 from one branch of the Reserve to another.

Mr. Shinwell: To that branch of the Reserve which is now under strength.

Sir W. Davison: Even if the Bill dealt with 10,000 or 20,000 instead of 3,000, I maintain that it would not increase the strength of the Army. All these men are on the Reserve and are liable to be called out in a case of national emergency. All the Bill does is to enable them, voluntarily, to say that even if Parliament has not declared a state of national emergency they are prepared at the request of the Government, through the War Office, to

offer their services in what may be regarded as a minor emergency such as recently occurred in Palestine. To state that it is increasing the Army even to the smallest extent, on a side-issue, is inaccurate.
The hon. Member for Bridgeton and I think the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Bellenger) said that 6d. a day was inadequate remuneration, but it is not remuneration. It is a bonus to any man who likes to respond to the offer, "We will give you this pocket money, or tip, or whatever you like to call it, of 6d. a day if you hold yourself ready, in case of a minor emergency to rejoin the colours." There is no compulsion about it.

Mr. Bellenger: I did refer to it as a retaining fee and not as pay, but I said that as a retaining fee it was not sufficient to make a man prejudice his future career.

Sir W. Davison: The word "remuneration" was used by the hon. Member for Bridgeton, and I think the hon. Member for Bassetlaw did correctly describe it as a retaining fee. But I am not much concerned about whether it is a retaining fee or remuneration. It is an offer by the Government to any man who cares to accept. Nobody need accept it unless he wishes to do so and when a man comes off his ordinary term of service he can give three months' notice to get out of the liability. The Secretary of State pointed out that only twice in a great many years had minor emergencies arisen. I think the right hon. Gentleman was right when he described it as a non-contentious Measure. Speeches from both sides have drawn attention to important matters in connection with recruiting and other subjects which have, I submit, nothing to do with the Bill. However I am not complaining of hon. Members jogging up the Secretary of State—indeed I am in favour of doing so.
The hon. Member for Bridgeton said this was an example of trying to run an Army on the cheap. The hon. Member must know that ours is the most expensive Army in the world. There is nothing to touch it. If conscription came and every one among all classes took his turn for a year, we could run it a great deal more cheaply and save money for social and other services. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Hon.


Gentlemen opposite do not like that. It is not, however, the proposal in the Bill. It does not add one man to the strength of the Army. It is simply an enabling measure so that a soldier who goes on to the Reserve can say that he is prepared, if he is given 6d. a day, to be called up for any minor emergency apart from the liability to be called up for a national emergency. The Opposition have no grounds for opposing the Measure unless they do not want any Army Reserve at all.

5.16 p.m.

Mr. Gordon Macdonald: I am very pleased with the modest tone of the Bill. I had been led to expect from the speeches of the Secretary of State for War that when he brought in a Bill to deal with the Defence Forces it would be of a drastic character. I am glad to find that things are so satisfactory in the Army that the Secretary of State is able to bring in this Measure. I hope that he will bring in no bigger Bill than this, and I compliment him on the modest character of it. The hon. Member for South Kensington (Sir W. Davison) must realise that the 6d. is given as an incentive, and if it is proved to be ineffective there can be nothing wrong in suggesting that the Secretary of State might consider increasing it. I have a number of friends on the Reserve and they approach me occasionally as to their position with regard to the means test. I agree that there may not be a great number, but the Secretary of State will fail in this endeavour to increase the Reserve unless he deals with those cases. As he asks for an extension to five years the number of reservists on the means test must increase.
The case has been brought to my notice of a man who lived in Wigan, where no deduction was made from his unemployment allowance in respect of his Reserve pay. He removed from Wigan to my division, which is governed from Preston for purposes of unemployment assistance. The whole of his Reserve pay was then deducted, and for two weeks following the receipt of his pay he received nothing from public assistance. The Secretary of State must realise that that kind of case will not help him. That man will circulate his case throughout the Wigan district and those who would otherwise probably

go on the Reserve will not do so because of the treatment that he is getting. The Secretary of State may experience some legal difficulty owing to the drafting of the legislation dealing with unemployment benefit, but I want him to look at the question of the reservists from that point of view. I want him to do it in order to further the intentions that he himself has in introducing this Bill.

5.20 p.m.

Mr. Sanders: The suggestions and criticisms made from this side of the House are made with the desire to help the Secretary of State in the undertaking he has in hand. The first criticism that has been made will have to be met if the numbers required by the Secretary of State are to be secured. It has been said that this is not a Bill to increase the strength of the Army. It is, and it is not. This Reserve is not allowed to be counted as a part of the strength of the Army, and yet that strength is increased potentially by the number in the Reserve. The question that will occur to any of the doubtful men who have not yet gone on the Reserve when they read the new circular is, "What new inducement is offered to us to join this Reserve?" As far as I can see, the only inducement is that they will be allowed to join for five years instead of two, but that only means that they have to add to their liability three years to the two which they have already undertaken. As one who has had a little to do with the War Office, I suggest that what is required to get men to join the Army as regulars or as reservists is some concrete material inducement in the form of increased pay or privileges. Sixpence per day was paid before the War. It is, therefore, at present worth only about 4d. as compared with the pay before the War. Would it not be worth while for the Secretary of State to consider getting the Treasury to allow him to offer a larger retaining fee?
The other point that has been pressed from this side is one that I want to press also, because it becomes more and more important. It is the question of the means test in regard to all kinds of emoluments received by men who have seen war service or have been in the Army. There are many instances in my constituency of men who, rightly or wrongly—and very often rightly—think they have been badly treated after the service in the


Army and during the War by the way in which they are served owing to the means test when they come before public assistance committees and other bodies which have to administer relief. It is a serious grievance and it operates not only against any attempt to increase this Reserve, but against recruiting generally. I therefore urge the Minister to induce the authorities, either by legislation or by circular, to give more generous treatment to these men when they are unemployed and have to go before the public assistance committees.
When a reservist is out of work and part of his 3s. 6d. a week is taken into consideration when he applies for relief, the total amount that he gets is not sufficient to keep him fit for the job he will have to do if he is called up as a reservist. It is obvious from what we have learned from food experts, some of whom are employed by the Government, that the sums allowed in the circumstances I have mentioned are not sufficient to keep a man in physical efficiency. No matter how much exercise a man may be given, unless he has a proper amount of food, which necessitates a proper amount of money with which to buy it, we shall not have efficient men when the unemployed reservists are called up. From the point of view of the men themselves, and from the point of view of the War Office, I urge that the attention of the War Office and the Treasury should be given to that question.

5.27 p.m.

Mr. A. Bevan: I hope that what I am going to say will not be treated as too acrimonious by hon. Members. I have listened to almost the whole of this Debate, although I did not have the privilege of hearing the first part of the right hon. Gentleman's speech. I cannot claim to be an authority on the technical aspects of this matter, and I shall make very little reference to them. There are only two ways in which we can acquire an Army or a Reserve. One is by conscription and the other by voluntary methods. If we adopt voluntary methods we must offer inducements to people to join the Reserves voluntarily. If the inducements are not high enough to enable us to get the numbers required, we must increase the inducements. I am sure that the Government require no prompting from this side of the House to increase the inducements if they are not high enough.

Notice taken that 40 Members were not present; House counted; and, 40 Members being present—

Mr. Bevan: The inducements to hon. Members are obviously enough to bring in a quorum, although the inducements are not perhaps quite as prominent as the penalties that might be imposed. We must trust the Government to increase the inducements if they are not large enough to obtain the necessary number of men, and therefore I shall not spend any time on imploring them to make them higher. It can be left to them to do it in their own good time.
In passing, I entirely agree that it is most unjust to take into account the reservist's pay, 6d. a day, in assessing the income under the family means test, but I do that on the ground that the means test as a whole is unjust. I must not by my silence—and that is why I rose—have it assumed that I believe the inducements offered to reservists should take the form of creating them into a priviliged class of citizens. If the Government want to increase the numbers in the "A" Reserve they should do it by increasing what has been described by some as pocket money, by others as remuneration and by still others as a retaining fee, but I object to the reservists' pay being treated in any sense differently from the way in which other income is treated in the case of other recipients of unemployment assistance. I deplore the fact that some of my hon. Friends have seen fit to ask that this pay should be exempted from assessment on the ground that it would induce more men to join the "A" Reserve.
I should have sympathised with the case, and should not have risen, had they based their objections to the proposal on the ground that the means test itself is iniquitous, and that this would eat into it to some extent, but on the grounds advanced I cannot agree with them. To my mind it is utterly inequitable that the 6d. a day granted to reservists should be exempted from assessment under the means test and a blind pension or workmen's compensation payment be taken into account. It is absolutely deplorable to create in this matter a favoured class of citizens, to treat this form of income as different from any other form of income. It is perfectly improper to treat it as being of the same rank as a pension,


because a pension is compensation for something which has been lost and is supposed to some extent to bring the recipient's earning powers to what they would have been had he not received the injury. The same thing is true of workmen's compensation payments; but here is a net amount of money which is not paid for any physical injury and is not compensation in any form. It is net income, and if we are to have a means test it should rank as income in the same way as any other form of income, although I must again guard myself in this matter—I am by no means certain that this ought to be taken into account, because I hold the view that the means test as a whole ought to be abolished, but I cannot agree that there are exceptional grounds for excluding this payment from assessment.
Towards the end of his speech the right hon. Gentleman said that many, or almost all, of the reservists who went to Palestine and were in jobs before they were recalled to the Colours had returned to those jobs, and that a number who were not in jobs when called up had since found jobs. He instanced a man who was in temporary municipal employment, and said that although the occasion of that temporary employment had lapsed, by his own statement to the local authority they had found work for the man. To that, again, I must take exception. As a trade union official I had a lot of experience in dealing with preferential employment given to ex-service men immediately after the War, and I know of no preferential consideration which caused greater difficulties in the workshops and mines. I cannot agree that an "A" reservist can have any claim to have employment over and above any other person. Such reservists must take their place at the Employment Exchanges with other citizens, but I, and, I am sure, my hon. Friends on this side of the House, would not have it said abroad that we hold the view that a man who joins the "A" Reserve has per se a greater title to employment than any other unemployed person. If we take up that position we shall find that our trade union colleagues will be in great difficulties in many parts of the country. If that reservist had happened to be in the employ of one of the local authorities in my constituency and had been in temporary employment, his

case would have upset all our most intricate arrangements for distributing employment fairly among unemployed persons—if he had been given exceptional treatment.
If a reservist is in employment when he is called up it is manifestly unjust that he should not return to that employment when he comes back to civil life. That is perfectly fair. He should be treated in a perfectly just manner, and an employer would be open to the gravest reproach if he victimised him by not giving him employment upon his return; but as a trade union member I cannot subscribe to the principle that because a man is a member of the "A" Reserve he should be given preferential treatment over and above the rest of the unemployed. The Bill is a comparatively small Measure. I did not think any more ambitious Measure would be brought forward now. I do not suppose that we shall find ambitious Measures put forward in connection with the Army. Most of the effort will be concentrated on the other two branches of the Defence Forces. But I do not think we on this side need have any apprehension at all. If you do not coerce men you have to buy them, and if the amount given is not at present sufficient we can rely on the enthusiasm of hon. Members in other parts of the House to increase the inducement.

5.38 p.m.

Mr. Gallacher: When the Army is being discussed I am always deeply interested, and I am more interested this afternoon when we are discussing the Reserve and the fact that the Minister, with all the resources of a great Department at his disposal, cannot get 6,000 reservists. I admit that much could be said about the small consideration that is given to those men, this 6d. a day, and much about the operation of the means test, but, after all, those are side issues and not the real thing. The Minister and this House will not, however, face the real question. I know a whole lot of reservists, fine fellows—[Interruption]. Yes, I know a lot who are Socialists, but while the more respectable Socialists on this side of the House would immediately repudiate any suggestion of having any relationship with any representative of my party, the pundits of the War Office and their fossilised agents in different parts of the country classify them all as "Reds" I would remind the Minister that there has been


a big change in the world since 1914, and an extraordinary change in the minds of the people of this country. Millions of men and women are taking an interest in politics to-day who never did so before, and every reservist when he returns to civil life becomes associated with politics of one brand or another. He may get into the British Legion. In some places the British Legion is in the unfortunate position of being dominated by Tories, but in many parts of the country the British Legion is continually discussing progressive politics. He may get associated with co-operative guilds, with trade unions and with the Labour party. He may take part in all shades of politics.
There are in every area—I know it—those associated with the military machine who have got whole numbers of reservists classified under the general heading of "Reds" We had the incident which was related by the right hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood), when he was dealing with the men discharged from the dockyards and the letter sent out by the Employers' Federation giving their names to all employers. We have the same sort of thing within the Army—that reservists, because of the fact that they are participating in a certain measure of political activity, are all marked. While that process is going on I do not care what inducement is offered. You can increase the 6d. a day or you can give them privileged treatment and remove the operation of the means test in their cases, but while you have in the War Office the spirit which you have just now, you will not get your 6,000 reservists. The Secretary of State knows that, because the general impression is being created by the Minister and by the Department that these reservists, like the main body of the Army, are wanted not for the defence or care of the people of this country in general but for the defence of certain capital interests in the country. The speeches made by the Minister have shown that there is that tendency and they have had the effect of holding back instead of helping recruits.
I ask the Minister to deny, if he can, that the War Office, and the subordinates of the War Office throughout the country, have got large numbers of men classified as "Reds" and who will be kept out if they try to get in. I know many who have tried at different times to make approaches but they are shut off, and so

I want the Minister to state clearly what these reservists are for, and whether they are a class force, as suggested by the Member who spoke from the Front Bench—that instead of these Reservist Forces there should be a military police. The distinguishing feature of a military police is that it can be used at home against the people, as well as abroad. That spirit and that tendency are exhibiting themselves everywhere. While you are trying to build up a class Army, not for the defence of the people but for the defence of capitalism, you will not get your reservists or your recruits for the Army in general. I ask the Minister to state whether it is not the case that those men are kept off the voluntary reserve because of their political opinions.

5.47 p.m.

The Financial Secretary to the War Office (Sir Victor Warrender): If it had not been for some years of enforced listening to Debates, and for the experience I have gained, I should rind it difficult to believe that a small Bill of this kind could produce such a varied Debate as has been the case this afternoon. One thing which I have learned since I have been in the House of Commons is that it is the unexpected which always happens. Much of the discussion this afternoon might have been curtailed if hon. Members had been a little more intimately aware of what is proposed to be done by the Bill. I may be able to answer many of the points which have been made in a few short sentences. In the first place, hon. Gentlemen are quite mistaken in thinking, as did the hon. Member for Seaham (Mr. Shinwell), that the Bill increases the number of the armed Forces of the Crown. It does nothing of the kind. If hon. Members will look at the Estimates for this year, they will find that the maximum numbers of the Army Reserve for this year are shown as 121,200 men. Section "A" is but a part of that Reserve, and whether you put 3,000 men or 6,000 men into it does not in the least alter the total of the whole Reserve. I saw a little conversation going on upon the Front Opposition Bench, but hon. Members apparently came to the conclusion, from what I could see, that the Government's arithmetic was as reliable as theirs.

Mr. Maxton: Does not the Bill alter the availability for service?

Sir V. Warrender: That is the whole point of the Bill. We realised from our experience in Palestine, that the figure of 3,000 to which we had been working, was not sufficient. If, for instance, another emergency had broken out in any part of the world where we had interests and responsibilities, we should have had no Section "A" Reserve with which to meet it. It must not be forgotten that if, next week, or in a short space of time, another set of circumstances similar to that which occurred in Palestine were to arise, and we had to call up the Reserves, we should have to make a call on the men who went last time. Apart from the question of the numbers being adequate it would, to my mind, and I think hon. Members will agree, be a definite hardship on the men, who, having done their duty and returned to their homes, had to turn out a second time, because of the shortage of Reserves, for a second term of duty. The underlying purpose of the Bill is to improve the machinery which exists and to avoid having to crack nuts with sledgehammers. We have plenty of men on the Reserves, but we have not sufficient for minor emergencies without causing a very great deal of dislocation.

Mr. Lees-Smith: Were all the 3,000 called up for Palestine?

Sir V. Warrender: All the infantry Reserves were. The chief criticism of the hon. Member for Seaham (Mr. Shinwell) was that he did not like the piecemeal fashion in which my right hon. Friend was altering the disposition of the Forces at the disposal of the Government. He thought that the method of dealing with it by a small Bill of this kind was—I will not say an underhand way, but more or less a concealed way, and that it was an improper way of proceeding. I think he will see, on reflection, that this is our only course. This matter cannot be dealt with either in the Army Annual Act or in the Estimates, because it requires special legislation.

Mr. Shinwell: My point was that, as the disposition and strength of the military Forces were in the process of reorganisation, in order to be adapted to modern circumstances, the whole plan of the Government should be put to the

House of Commons instead of a Bill of this kind.

Sir V. Warrender: No further legislation will be required. This is a small Bill so that the Government can have at their disposal a larger number of Reserves, who can be called up immediately, without legislation or Proclamations. Another point that has been made is that, if recruiting had been better, we should have had no need to bring in this Bill. That is not a very sound argument, because the falling off in the figures for recruiting will not be felt, so far as the Reserves are concerned, for some years to come, nor indeed will any immediate increase in recruiting. The men who are leaving the Army to-day and going on Reserve, so far as the infantry are concerned, were recruited seven years ago.
While I am on the subject of recruiting, the House might be interested to know that the figures for January have proved to be very much more satisfactory than anybody expected they would be. In the Territorial Army there has been an increase of 150 per cent. Over the figures for the same month last year, the largest there has been so far, and, for the first time for many years, this January has produced an increase of 13 per cent. in the figures for the Regular Army. Hon. Members will be reassured and satisfied that there is definitely a very substantial turn in the upward direction in recruiting during the present year.

Mr. Lees-Smith: With what does the 13 per cent. compare?

Sir V. Warrender: It is a comparison of January of this year with January of last year.

Mr. Ede: What were the actual figures of recruits?

Sir V. Warrender: I have not them here at the moment. The other point which I would like to make clear is that it has been suggested that we are having great difficulty in getting men to join Section "A" of the Army Reserves and that the rate of pay offered is insufficient. The rate of pay for the ordinary Reserve is 1s. per day. A man on Section "A" Reserve gets an additional 6d a day or, in other words, 50 per cent. more than his late comrade who is on the ordinary Reserve but not in Section "A" That 50 per cent. is a very substantial increase. [Interrup-


tion.] If hon. Members feel that it is not sufficient, this is not the moment to discuss rates of pay. They will have ample opportunity when the Estimates come along. Hon. Members will be deceiving themselves if they think that it is because of such reasons that we have only 3,000 men in this section of the Reserve at the present time.
The reason we require legislation is to alter the terms under which men can serve in this section of the Reserve. A good many men complete their two years on Section A, and would like to re-engage, but, under the law, they are not allowed to do that. Those men will all be available to us if the Bill is passed. There is a certain number of men who go into the Reserve and do not sign on in Section A, but who subsequently feel that they would like to do so. Under the present law they can only do so during the first two years of Reserve service. We are extending the period and we shall get those men too. We are very substantially widening the field of recruitment, and, according to the response we get, we shall make regulations, and either lengthen or curtail the period, according to the total Reserve service—five years or whatever period it may be.
One or two questions were asked by the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton), whose chief point was as to the treatment meted out to men who were unlucky enough to be wounded and to the dependants of those who were killed in the Palestine emergency. Naturally, those men were subject to exactly the same Regulations as other men serving in the Regular Army, and who got killed, maimed or wounded in the service of the Crown. I can definitely give the hon. Member the assurance for which he asks me, that they are being treated in exactly the same way. He then asked me about the proportion of the infantry in the Reserves, because it struck him as being very large. The reason we require more infantry in Section A is that the infantry are far less up to strength at the present time than other corps in the Regular Army. We can, of course, spread the personnel in Section A to suit our needs, and if and when the strength of the infantry in the Regular Army improves we may find it unnecessary to have such a large force of infantry. That is a matter entirely to suit our own needs and requirements. Those are the

points which have been put by hon. Gentlemen opposite, and now that I have—

Mr. G. Macdonald: What about the means test?

Sir V. Warrender: As regards the means test, the position is that we now have an agreement with the Unemployment Assistance Board. It has been in force for some time. Where reservists are employed, and members of a family in which, perhaps, the father is unemployed, the reserve pay of the Reservist is not taken into account. If the reservist is himself unemployed, and a member of a family, in assessing his needs, 50 per cent. of his Reserve pay is not taken into account.

Mr. Shinwell: Has the decision of the Unemployment Assistance Board arising from that agreement been recorded in any Regulation issued by the board?

Sir V. Warrender: I hope hon. Members will excuse me if I do not answer in detail, but those are not matters which concern the War Office. I know the question only as it affects men for whom we are responsible.

Mr. G. Macdonald: What about the case where the reservist himself is the head of a family?

Sir V. Warrender: Broadly speaking, where the reservist is himself the head of the family and is not unemployed—

Mr. Macdonald: When he is on the means test.

Sir V. Warrender: When he is on the means test he would be unemployed, and in that case I imagine that 50 per cent. of his reserve pay would be taken into consideration. These, however, are really not War Office subjects, and the Bill does not deal with them, so that hon. Members can hardly expect me to be primed to the full with all the information that they require. I can only hope in the meantime that they will settle their differences on their own Benches, because, as I understood the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan), he semed to take quite a different point of view on this subject from those who spoke more officially. I have endeavoured to answer all the points which have been made by hon. Members, and would ask them now to give us the Second Reading of the Bill.

Mr. Maxton: What about the political point?

Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House for Thursday.—[Sir H. Morris-Jones.]

SUPPLY.

Considered in Committee [Progress, 8th February.]

[Captain BOURNE in the Chair.]

CIVIL ESTIMATES, SUPPLEMENTARY

ESTIMATES, 1936.

CLASS I.

MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSES.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10,937, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge whih will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1937, for certain Miscellaneous Expenses, including certain Grants in Aid and Supplement to certain Statutory Salaries.

6.3 p.m.

Mr. Lawson: Last night we had considerable discussion on this Supplementary Estimate. The Estimate is one for the comparatively small sum of £14,000, and it deals with the administration of the Special Areas Reconstruction Act. Attention was drawn last night to the fact that the amount is small, and that it deals with administration, but it deals with the administration of an Act which was put before the House by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I think in an experimental mood, but not without optimism. I am well aware that in this Debate we are limited by the particular form of the Estimate and the subject with which it deals, but I think it is permissible to remind the Minister and the Committee that this is one of the very few and important schemes for dealing with the Special Areas upon which the Government rely. The Act implements no small part of the Government's policy with reference to these areas, and, therefore, while we are not allowed to discuss the matter in its broader aspects, the Government and the House must not forget that we are dealing here with a phase of reconstructive policy upon which the Government have based considerable hopes, and in which the areas themselves

have in some respects placed a good deal of confidence as regards restoration.
The Minister said yesterday that a whole flood of schemes came in—I think he said there were some 450 odd—immediately the Act began to operate. He pointed out that applications had been made by people who really misunderstood its functions. That, no doubt, is true, but I am not so sure that they showed as great a misunderstanding of the functions as the people who administered them. When the schemes were boiled down, 42 were left which were admitted in principle. The right hon. Gentleman did not tell us yesterday just what he meant by the schemes being admitted in principle, though he had a certain amount to say about it when a question was put to him. He said that the loans had been agreed to in principle, but that in some cases the money was not required for the moment, and in others the matter was in legal hands. I wonder if the cases referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Whitehaven (Mr. F. Anderson) were among those that were admitted in principle. Whitehaven is geographically a very bad place, and, if there is an area that needs special consideration, I should think it is that part of the country. If you have an enterprising man or number of men who want to do things, and even take risks, it seems to me that that is one place which might have been very generously considered by this body of people. Other instances were given in which it seemed to me that the people concerned, if they could have accepted the conditions, need not have gone to the Special Areas Reconstruction Association at all, for the conditions were not only the common conditions of the market, but sometimes worse.
One of the most outstanding was that a rate of 5 per cent. was asked for the loans. On every hand 5 per cent. was given as the uniform standard rate of interest to be paid. Then the right hon. Gentleman came along and said that the Association had reduced the rate to, think, 4½ per cent. in some cases. I think that that came as a surprise to most Members, and it is one of the things that the right hon. Gentleman has to answer. As far as I remember, none of those Members who made complaints knew that there was any lower standard of interest than 5 per cent. until the right hon. Gentleman himself made the


statement to the House. When was that decision taken? Why was it not more commonly known? To whom does this lower rate of interest apply? Are there any cases in which the rate is less than 5 per cent? Here are Members of the House, not only on this side but on the opposite side also, who are in close touch with gentlemen and firms interested in the Special Areas, and yet nobody knows anything about it. I only mention that as an illustration of the method of dealing with this matter, for the purpose of showing that the members of the committee who are handling this matter are prepared to yield for the moment on the spot when it is a case of debate, in order to give the right hon. Gentleman something to work upon, but we shall be very glad to have instances where in any of these 42 cases the Committee has in actual practical fact granted loans at a lower rate than the standard rate of 5 per cent.
I did not hear—and the right hon. Gentleman must have noticed this—any Member who did not criticise the administration of the committee; I did not hear anyone speak enthusiastically about it. The fact of the matter is that it is the same with this particular organisation as with every other Department. When they are dealing with this problem they are aloof, cool, practical, twenty-shillings-to-the-pound people, who act as though they had nothing to do with the central policy of the Government. That is really the position. The right hon. Gentleman is answering, not for the Government's policy, but for the Treasury. His only business is, not to see that this particular committee does its job, as was visualised, so we are told, by the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he asked the House to pass the Bill, but to get this Supplementary Estimate through, and the Supplementary Estimate is really a floodlight on the whole attitude towards this question. I can tell the right hon. Gentleman that it is not only Members of the House who have criticisms to make. My hon. Friend the Member for Whitehaven and my hon. Friend the Member for Consett (Mr. David Adams) have referred to particular items, and I believe that the hon. Member for Gateshead (Mr. Magnay) and the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Mabane) had considerable criticisms to make.

Mr. Mabane: I was asking questions rather than making criticisms.

Mr. Lawson: I only wish that I could put the questions which the hon. Member put as clearly and competently as he put them last night. I should say I was not a bad hand at criticism if I could put a question in exactly the same form. Everywhere you go you hear these criticisms. The bankers are in charge. What do they care about the spirit in which a thing like this has to be operated? It is of small moment to them. We have seen it all before in one form or another. It is a case of no one cares. With due respect to the right hon. Gentleman and his ability, I think this is an Estimate that the Chancellor himself ought to have been here to answer for, because he is usually the person who answers for Government policy in dealing with the Special Areas. This Supplementary Estimate and the administration of the fund are related to the whole policy of the Government. All that the hon. and gallant Gentleman can tell us is that 42 firms have been granted loans in principle. He has not been able to tell us where they are operating, how many men they are going to employ, or anything of that kind. We have been given definite instances where first-class business men who have agreed to establish new industries in the Special Areas have wanted money for the purpose and they have been either hampered or questioned or penalised in various ways until they have got tired and given it up as a bad job.
We have never been prepared to cry stinking fish about any of these schemes. The remarkable thing is the general tolerance that there has been in the matter, and the disposition to accept almost anything if it was an attempt to do something. There is a good deal that the hon. and gallant Gentleman ought to tell us. First of all, he must answer the questions put by my hon. Friend the Member for Whitehaven, and I hope he has had an opportunity of reading them in print and is going to square up to them. We are also entitled to be told whether this niggardly spirit, this kind of refrigerator, is to dominate the operation of the scheme. The finance of the Act is an elusive subject. The Chancellor first gave the impression that there was to be a £2,000,000 loan, and then that therewas


to be a £2,000,000 guarantee. Generally speaking, there was a good deal of doubt whether the Government were going to put anything into it or not. Now we understand that £250,000 has been loaned. Have these 42 companies accepted the loans? Are they going to operate? Are factories representative of light industries going to be laid down? I ask that, because some hon. Members have given instances where there have been promises of loans in certain conditions which have not been accepted because the conditions have been so heavy. Are these real live companies? In the second place, how many are to be employed? In the third place is the hon. and gallant Gentleman prepared, in the face of the criticisms that have come from every side, to tell us that they are going to do what they can to operate the Act in the spirit in which the Chancellor spoke originally, and at the same time let these people understand that it is not merely a plain banking financial deal, but that they are really handling a scheme which was designed to reconstruct areas which have been suffering considerably, and to give men and women a chance in them?

6.24 p.m.

Mr. Cartland: I do not think the hon. Gentleman was quite fair in levelling such an attack against my right hon. Friend, because I cannot help feeling that, while the Treasury are bound to answer for the administration, they have not very much say in the day-to-day administration. It will be particularly helpful to the Committee to know how close is the co-operation between the Treasury and the directors of the Special Areas Reconstruction Association. Until we know that it is very close, I feel that the criticisms that the hon. Gentleman made are not justified. So much of the criticism is levelled really against the terms of the Act, and a great deal of the hon. Gentleman's speech, it seemed to me, was criticism of the Act and not of its administration. When, for instance, he said that the directors were 20s. for a pound men, that is to be expected, because they have to carry out this financing of companies in the Special Areas within the terms of the Special Areas Act. It is not suggested that they should carry it out with any particular degree of generosity or that they should

accept every scheme that is put up. As I understand it, they have to go into each scheme as carefully as if it were a private company financing an ordinary business concern. The money that the Special Areas Reconstruction Association is working through is not Government money, but private money; therefore, obviously it is to be expected that those who consider these loans are automatically 20s. for a pound men. I do not think that is a criticism against the administration though, perhaps, it is a criticism of the Act.
I should like to ask my right hon. Friend a question with regard to the rate of interest. When schemes are put forward, do the rates of interest vary from scheme to scheme or is there one uniform rate? It might be very helpful if we were told that. Five per cent. has been mentioned, and there is a general feeling that this is a uniform rate which cannot be varied according to whether the scheme is more likely to prove successful or not. I should say that on the face of it the rate ought to vary with regard to the type of scheme that is put up. Finally, there seems to be very great delay in dealing with these schemes. There was a case in my constituency where there was a delay of five or six months. A scheme was put forward and sent up to the North and considered. Eventually it was turned down. The man was treated with complete courtesy throughout, but six months is a long time when you are waiting to know whether you are going to obtain a loan or not, and particularly long when in the end it is refused.

6.28 p.m.

Sir John Mellor: I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman to clear up one point. According to the statutory report, on l0th August last year there had been received by the company in respect of shares £145,000, that is to say, £100,000 in respect of £100,000 ordinary shares of £1 each, fully paid, and £45,000 in respect of 900,000 cumulative preference shares of £1 each, 1s. paid. My right hon. Friend yesterday said that altogether £247,000 had been lent by the company or was in process of negotiation for loan. Does that mean that further calls have been made on the preference shareholders and that now more than 1s. per share has been paid up, or that these


loans have been or will be financed from other sources?

6.29 p.m.

Mr. F. Anderson: I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman how many cases have been withdrawn after they have been agreed to in principle, because the persons concerned could not comply with the conditions laid down by the Special Areas Reconstruction Association. The next question is, how many cases have been made by the association where the association have been the predominant partners?

6.30 p.m.

Mr. A. Edwards: There are one or two points which I should like to raise before the Minister replies. A case came before me quite recently where a man had been given a promise. His application must have been approved in principle, but he was actually advertising that he had been promised a loan under certain conditions and was then trying to get support from the public to further his proposition in the distressed area. I recently heard of a case of another type where they definitely refused to give a man any kind of report which would assist him in going to the City for finance. Perhaps a rather dangerous precedent will be set here, if we are to assume that, when there is approval in principle, it means that the Government or the company are expressing approval of the scheme. The Government Department said that they would not in any circumstances give a report in the particular case they had investigated because the people would then go to the City and ask for money with which to back their proposition, and they would, no doubt, get it. If the man had had a scheme approved in principle, he would have got a considerable amount of money, and people would have thought that it was a sound proposition. I should like to know, when the Financial Secretary replies, whether it is correct so to construe approval in principle. If so, there may be some extremely dangerous experiences.
Someone who spoke yesterday rather ridiculed the idea that this scheme was to be a kind of fairy godmother to the depressed areas. It was precisely a scheme to induce people to go into those areas where people would not go unless there was some special inducement. It is idle to tell us that no ordinary bank will accept proposals such as are approved by

this company. If you are to charge 5 per cent.—I understood late last night that the Financial Secretary said that it would perhaps be 4½ per cent. in certain circumstances—and even 4½ per cent., it will not be difficult to get money to-day on the conditions that this company demand; a floating charge on all the assets of the company, a guarantee to put 50 per cent. in cash into the proposition, and, in addition, guarantees by the directors. Under such conditions, I should be very glad at any time to get for anyone who has a good proposition, all the finance that is wanted. It is ridiculous to suggest that it is the case of a fairy godmother. Are some people to get the money at 4½ per cent. and others at 5 per cent., or are those whose applications have already been approved in principle to have the benefit of 4½ per cent.? If so, it would be grossly unfair. Can we know definitely whether money has actually passed into industry yet, and have the first steps been taken towards employing anybody in the distressed areas? We were put off yesterday by the statement that it was unimportant whether money had passed or not so long as it was approved in principle. That is a vague statement and covers a multitude of sins. Can we know whether money has been devoted to the establishment of any new industries in the distressed areas?

6.35 p.m.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Lieut.-Colonel Colville): I think that the Committee will be ready to agree that I should now attempt to reply to a number of the points that have been raised. I make no complaint at all about the interest which is being taken in the work of this Association. We regard it on all sides of the House as an experiment, and it is right and proper that the Parliament which agreed to set up this Association should take an interest in its operations. I pointed out last night that it was early yet to judge. It has had eight months existence, but only about four months of effective operation. It had to be formed and boards had to be got together and machinery arranged. None the less, it is not unsatisfactory that in four months the company should have agreed to lend a sum of nearly £250,000, which is about a quarter of its capital. Through almost all the speeches there has run one question, which I will deal with at the very start, namely, What do I mean


by "approved in principle?" There was a suggestion in the mind of some people that I was giving a figure which was perhaps, unintentionally, a misleading figure in that it might not be reached. I want to assure hon. Members quite categorically that that is not the case. When I say that 42 cases, amounting to £243,450, were approved in principle, I want to make it clear that the Association regards itself as committed to make these loans. In almost all the cases they are merely waiting for the necessary formalities to be completed.
Far be it from me to say anything against the formalities which take place among legal friends when a company is formed, but hon. Members will be aware that when a new company is formed—and in many of these cases we are dealing with new companies—there are certain formalities to be gone through. There is the production of the articles of association and the registration of the company, and in such cases, naturally, the applicant is not ready for the money and does not want the money until the company has reached that stage. In the words used by my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Mabane), there is every reason to suppose that virtually the whole of the £243,450 will be lent. I have already said that this is a figure to which the Association regard themselves as committed. The Committee will agree with me that I cannot deal with the affairs of individual firms or individual applicants. That would not be fair and proper. If I dealt with the affairs of individual firms who had received loans, equally I should have to deal with the affairs of those who had not been granted loans. Obviously, to discuss such things and mention the names of the firms would be to damage their credit. I cannot do it. I must therefore deal rather more generally with the work of the Association.
I should like to answer some questions which have ranged over the Debate, and I must come back to some of the ground which I covered last night. Running through the Debate there has been a suggestion of delay in giving sometimes even a negative answer. My hon. Friend the Member for King's Norton (Mr. Cartland), who, if I may say so, showed a very clear appreciation of the terms of the Act, said that he knew of a case where some five or six months had elapsed between the application and the reply,

which, in this case, was a negative one. I do not know whether his particular case was one which came into the matter from the start. If so, I feel that what happened in that and in many other cases was that the applications came in at once before the machinery of the Association had been got together. The first two months of the official life of the Association were really not active months, for the reason I explained last night. They had to get people to serve on the boards and put the machinery into operation. I hope and believe that there will not, in the future work of the Association, be undue delay in dealing with correspondence and sending out replies.
There are at present 51 applications still under consideration, and now that the Association is fully in its stride, I do not anticipate undue delay in dealing with these cases. I appreciate that on all sides hon. Members have felt that in the initial stages there was some delay in dealing with the applications, and that, I hope, I have satisfactorily explained. A number of questions have been asked, and I should like to deal with as many of them as possible. I was asked last night—and I think the hon. Member for Chesterle-Street (Mr. Lawson) stressed it—what type of work is being effected by these loans. I cannot mention individual firms, but I can give examples. They include brick manufacture, coal mining, toy manufacture, pressed steel, tiles, iron foundry, quarries, grain silos, box manufacture, glass manufacture and tube manufacture. That is not an exhaustive list of the types of industry in regard to which loans have been granted.

Mr. Maxton: Why cannot the right hon. and gallant Gentleman mention the names?

Lieut.-Colonel Colville: I have already explained that to the Committee.

Mr. Maxton: I did not hear any explanation at all.

Lieut.-Colonel Colville: I will repeat it. If I gave the names of the firms for whom loans had been agreed in principle, equally I should be entitled to be asked to give the names of all firms for whom loans have been asked and to whom the Association were not prepared to give loans. Nearly 50 per cent. of the loans approved are in respect of new businesses altogether, the balance being in respect of


extensions of existing businesses. Of the new businesses, a number of them are entirely new to the areas concerned. My hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield raised the point whether we had regard to the competition which was being introduced into the areas by new industries receiving a certain amount of special assistance. To that I must say that the Association certainly does consider the question of redundancy within an area, and, to a certain extent, in the particular industry outside the area, in making a grant. As to the rate of interest to which hon. Members referred, 5 per cent. was the maximum rate quoted up till quite recently. I cannot give the exact date of the change. I heard of it last week. There was a maximum rate of 5 per cent. before then, but it was not a flat rate. The Association, acting in the terms of the charter is obliged to consider each case on its merits. There have been a number of cases where it has been willing to lend at rates below 5 per cent. That is because the Association must have regard to the particular circumstances of each case in deciding whether it will make a loan available or not. Those circumstances include the security and credit-worthiness of the applicant, and for that reason it would not be possible for the association to fix a flat rate in all cases.

Mr. David Adams: Are we to understand that the maximum rate to-day is 4½ per cent.

Lieut.-Colonel Colville: That is my information. The point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Chiswick (Mr. Mitchell) was in relation to the local boards, and was to the effect that the local boards upon which we have capable people serving should be given a higher degree of responsibility. The same point was raised by another hon. Member in relation to another part of the country. The actual responsibility for making the loan rests upon the central board. They cannot devolve the responsibility on the local boards. The local boards in an advisory capacity can be of great assistance to the central board, and we can well understand the importance of close association between the local boards and the central board, but the actual responsibility must rest with the central board. I do not know that there is much more that I can say. The Committee will recollect that in moving the Supplementary

Estimate I drew attention to another and different item in the Estimate, which relates to a saving on a certain sporting event in Ireland.

Mr. Cartland: Can the right hon. and gallant Member say anything about the co-operation between the Treasury and the central board?

Lieut.-Colonel Colville: The Association acts under the terms of its charter. Under the Agreement with the Treasury the Association has in its own power discretion as to the making of loans, but there is a certain degree of co-operation with the Treasury. The Association is, for example, limited to the making of loans up to £10,000, except with the consent of the Treasury. When a higher proposal than that is contemplated, there must be discussion and co-operation with, and finally the consent of, the Treasury. Such consent has already been given, and there are other cases under consideration. The Association must, however, under the terms of the Agreement, have power to decide whether it will make a loan or not.

Mr. Anderson: Are not the expenses of administration met by the Treasury?

Lieut.-Colonel Colville: The reason why the Government thought it advisable that the power and the duty should be vested in the Association to make loans and to consider applications on their merits, was because it was felt that it should not be a subject of continual political pressure that, say, certain individuals should be granted loans. It was therefore felt right that it should remain in the hands of the Association to administer matters in accordance with the terms of its charter. With regard to administration expenses, within the terms of the Act and up to a sum of £20,000, the expenses are met through a Vote, which is the Vote we are considering to-night. Two other questions were asked. In regard to the figure which I gave as to the loans agreed on, in principle, I am informed that none has been withdrawn. Therefore, the figure that I gave does not include any loans that were subsequently withdrawn.

Mr. Mabane: I asked whether the right hon. and gallant Gentleman could say how much of the £243,000 has actually passed to the borrowers.

Mr. Lawson: Can the right hon. and gallant Member say whether any men have been employed as a result of this scheme?

Lieut.-Colonel Colville: It is too early to say, but I have no doubt that some employment has resulted. If the hon. Member asks that question a year hence when the companies have got into operation, it ought to be possible to say what employment has been given. I am not in a position to say at the present time how many men are employed as a result of this work, but I do know that several of the proposals envisage the employment of a considerable number of men. The hon. Member for Whitehaven (Mr. Anderson) last night spoke of one undertaking which in the event of its coming into fruition would employ 1,000 men. There are other proposals, and I can assure the Committee that it is our belief that as things develop the scheme will lead to the employment of a considerable number of men in the Special Areas. It must be remembered, however, that the formation of the Association was not undertaken as a cure for unemployment in the Special Areas but as an effort to fill a gap in the present finance system. In reply to the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Mabane), I am not in a position to say what sums have passed over, but it is clear that the Association is committed to pay the sum which I mentioned.
I think it was the hon. Member for Consett (Mr. D. Adams) who took me up on the statement I made, that one quarter of the capital had already been promised. He said that the £1,000,000 was a floating fund and that I was exaggerating when I claimed that already one-fourth of the capital had been earmarked. I am not exaggerating, because although the fund is a revolving one you cannot lend the same £1,000,000 twice until you get it back again. Therefore, I am right in saying that the Association at the present time is committed to lend one-fourth of its capital.

Mr. Anderson: Has the right hon. and gallant Member information as to the number of instances where the association has asked for the putting up of an amount of capital equivalent to the loan?

Lieut.-Colonel Colville: I have not the information, but I do know that it has not been laid down as an invariable rule to ask that the applicant should put up an equal amount. That must depend upon the individual case. I cannot give the hon. Member the information as to

how many cases have been dealt with where the security of an equal amount of capital has been given.

Mr. Anderson: This was one of the serious points which I mentioned last night, and I think that it ought to have been looked into in the meantime as to how far what I said was accurate or otherwise.

Lieut.-Colonel Colville: The Association has to examine each case on its merits and it has to act prudently and lend money only in those cases where it believes there is the germ of success. It is entitled to ask for a certain measure of security before deciding to make a loan. If the applicant can get his accommodation from a bank, then the Association cannot act under the terms of its charter, because it was definitely formed to deal with those cases where accommodation is not available from the banks. I hope the Committee will appreciate that I have tried to cover the ground which was covered in the Debate last night, and perhaps I may in conclusion be allowed to say—

Sir J. Mellor: Will the right hon. and gallant Member answer the very brief question that I asked as to whether the quarter of the total capital he mentioned is entirely derived from the proceeds of the issue of shares, or that the loans will be financed from other sources?

Lieut.-Colonel Colville: I cannot state the exact capital position, but the intention on the formation of the Association was that the funds should be derived from subscribed capital. In moving the Estimate I referred to another item, and that was a certain sporting event in Ireland, to which we do not have to contribute on this Vote, as it is now met from other funds.

Mr. David Adams: May I ask the right hon. and gallant Member a question on a very important matter, namely, what is the amount of capital to be made ultimately available? Are we to understand that the total amount will be £1,000,000, and that nothing further will be available unless we have legislation until the £1,000,000 has been repaid at the end of five years?

Lieut.-Colonel Colville: I cannot deal with the future. The capital at the moment


is £1,000,000. The hon. Member is dealing now not with a question of administration but with the whole question of the Act, the terms of which are known to hon. Members. I would refer the hon. Member to the terms of the Act. It is clearly laid down what is the way in which the capital will revolve, and it should not be necessary on a Supplementary Estimate which deals with the question of administration to explain the terms of the Act of Parliament. In conclusion, let me say in reference to that particular sporting occasion, which I have tried several times to approach, and which hon. Members will perhaps now allow me to approach, that it is not the speed with which one backs horses but the skill with which one selects them that brings results. So in the case of this Association, it is the skill which the directors show in

selecting those enterprises that will make good and give employment in the Special Areas, that will be the test of its work. I hope and believe that as time goes on we shall see that the Association is doing good work in that respect. Meanwhile, it will do the association no harm but good to see the interest which is being expressed in Parliament in the work which it is carrying out.

Question put,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10,937, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1937, for certain Miscellaneous Expenses, including certain Grants in Aid and Supplement to certain Statutory Salaries

The Committee divided: Ayes, 208; Noes, 113.

Division No. 74.]
AYES.
[6.57 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J
Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil)
Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)


Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)
Dawson, Sir P.
Jones, L. (Swansea W.)


Albery, Sir Irving
Denman, Hon. R. D.
Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'kn'hd)
Denville, Alfred
Knox, Major-General Sir A. W. F.


Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir W. J. (Armagh)
Dorman-Smith, Major R. H.
Lamb, Sir J. Q.


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Drewe, C.
Lambert, Rt. Hon. G.


Apsley, Lord
Duckworth, G. A. V. (Salop)
Law, Sir A. J. (High Peak)


Aske, Sir R. W.
Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side)
Law, R. K. (Hull, S.W.)


Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet)
Duncan, J. A. L.
Leckie, J. A.


Barclay-Harvey, Sir C. M.
Dunglass, Lord
Leech, Dr. J. W.


Baxter, A. Beverley
Eastwood, J. F.
Lees-Jones, J.


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Eckersley, P. T.
Levy, T.


Beit, Sir A. L.
Edmondson, Major Sir J.
Lewis, O.


Blindell, Sir J.
Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Liddall, W. S.


Boulton, W. W.
Elliston, Capt. G. S
Llewellin, Lieut.-Col. J. J.


Boyce, H. Leslie
Elmley, Viscount
Lloyd, G. W.


Braithwaite, Major A. N.
Emmott, C. E. G. C.
Locker-Lampson, Comdr. O. S.


Brass, Sir W.
Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)


Briscoe, Capt. R. G.
Errington, E.
MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.


Brocklebank, G. E. R.
Erskine-Hill, A. G.
M'Connell, Sir J.


Brown, Col. D. C. (Hexham)
Fildes, Sir H.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Scot. U.)


Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)
Fox, Sir G. W. G.
Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)
Fremantle, Sir F. E.
McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.


Browne, A. C. (Belfast, W.)
Furness, S. N.
McKie, J. H.


Bull, B. B.
Ganzoni, Sir J.
Magnay, T.


Campbell, Sir E. T.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir J.
Manningham-Buller, Sir M.


Cartland, J. R. H.
Glyn, Major Sir R. G. C.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.


Cayzer, Sir C. W. (City of Chester)
Goldie, N. B.
Markham, S. F.


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Gower, Sir R. V.
Maxwell, Hon. S. A.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgb't'n)
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.


Channon, H.
Gratton, Col. Rt. Hon. J.
Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)


Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)
Gridley, Sir A. B.
Mitchell, H. (Brentford and Chiswick)


Christie, J. A.
 Gritten, W. G. Howard
Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.


Clarke, F. E.
Guest, Maj. Hon. O. (C'mb'rw'll, N.W.)
Munro, P.


Clarke, Lt.-Col. R. S. (E. Grinstead)
Guy, J. C. M.
Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.



Hacking, Rt. Hon. D. H.



Clarry, Sir Reginald
Hanbury, Sir C.
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. W. G. A.


Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)
Hannon, Sir P. J. H
Orr-Ewing, I. L.


Colfox, Major W. P.
Haslam, H. C. (Horncastle)
Palmer, G. E. H.


Colville, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. D. J.
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Patrick, C. M.


Cook, Sir T. R. A. M. (Norfolk, N.)
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.
Peake, O.


Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-
Peat, C. U.


Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.)
Hepworth, J.
Peters, Dr. S. J.


Cranborne, Viscount
Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)
Petherick, M.


Critchley, A.
Holdsworth, H.
Pilkington, R.


Croft, Brig.-Gen. Sir H. Page
Holmes, J. S.
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.


Crooke, J. S.
Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.
Porritt, R. W.


Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Horsbrugh, Florence
Pownall, Lt.-Col. Sir Assheton


Cross, R. H.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)
Procter, Major H. A.


Crossley, A. C.
Hudson, R. S. (Southport)
Radford, E. A.


Crowder, J. F. E.
Hunter, T.
Raikes, H. V. A. M.


Culverwell, C. T.
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (S'k N'w'gt'n)
Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.




Ramsden, Sir E.
Shakespeare, G. H.
Touche, G. C.


Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)
Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)
Tree, A. R. L. F.


Rawson, Sir Cooper
Shepperson, Sir E. W.
Turton, R. H.


Reid, Sir D. D. (Down)
Shute, Colonel Sir J. J.
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Reid, W. Allan (Derby)
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.
Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)


Remer, J. R.
Smiles, Lieut.-Colonel Sir W. D.
Warrender, Sir V.


Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)
Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)
Waterhouse, Captain C.


Ropner, Colonel L.
Somerset, T.
Wedderburn, H. J. S.


Ross, Major Sir R. D. (Londonderry)
Somervell, Sir D. B. (Crewe)
Wells, S. R.


Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)


Rowlands, G.
Southby, Commander A. R. J.
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir A. T. (Hitchin)


Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.
Spens, W. P.
Wise, A. R.


Russell, A. West (Tynemouth)
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'l'd)
Withers, Sir J. J.


Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)
Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)
Womersley, Sir W. J.


Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Salmon, Sir I,
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.
Young, A. S. L. (Partick)


Salt, E. W.
Sutcliffe, H.



Sanderson, Sir F. B.
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (Padd., S.)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Scott, Lord William
Thomson, Sir J. D. W.
Sir George Penny and Sir Henry Morris-Jones.




NOES.


Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir F. Dyke
Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)
Ridley, G.


Adams, D. (Consett)
Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)
Riley, B.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Ritson, J.


Adamson, W. M.
Hardie, G. D.
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Brom.)


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Harris, Sir P. A.
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)


Banfield, J. W.
Hicks, E. G.
Rowson, G.


Batey, J.
Hills, A. (Pontefract)
Sanders, W. S.


Bellenger, F. J.
Hollins, A.
Seely, Sir H. M.


Benson, G.
Hopkin, D.
Sexton, T. M.


Bevan, A.
Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)
Shinwell, E.


Bromfield, W.
Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)
Short, A.


Brooke, W.
John, W.
Simpson, F. B.


Brown, C. (Mansfield)
Jones, A. C. (Shipley)
Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)


Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (S. Ayrshire)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Buchanan, G.
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees- (K'ly)


Cape, T.
Lawson, J. J.
Sorensen, R. W.


Cassells, T.
Lee, F.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)


Chater, D.
Leslie, J. R.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Cluse, W. S.
Logan, D. G.
Thorne, W.


Clynes, Rt. Hon. J. R.
Lunn, W.
Thurtle, E.


Cove, W. G.
Macdonald, G. (Ince)
Tinker, J. J.


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
McGhee, H. G.
Viant, S. P.


Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)
Maclean, N.
Walkden, A. G.


Ede, J. C.
Mainwaring, W. H.
Watkins, F. C.


Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough E.)
Mander, G. le M.
Watson, W. McL.


Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Marshall, F.
Welsh, J. C.


Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)
Maxton, J.
Westwood, J.


Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.
Milner, Major J.
Whiteley, W.


Foot, D. M.
Montague, F.
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Gallacher, W.
Owen, Major G.
Williams, T. (Don Valley)


Gardner, B. W.
Paling, W.
Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)


Garro Jones, G. M.
Parker, J.
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Parkinson, J. A.
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Green, W. H. (Deptford)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.
Potts, J.



Grenfell, D. R.
Price, M. P.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)
Pritt, D. N.
Mr. Mathers and Mr. Groves.


Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
Richards, R. (Wrexham)

SCOTTISH OFFICE.

Resolved,
That a Supplementary sum, not ex-exceeding £10, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1937, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Offices of His Majesty's Secretary of State for Scotland in London and Edinburgh; Expenses under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1936; a Subsidy for Transport Services to the Western Highlands and Islands; a Grant in lieu of Land Tax; and Contributions towards the expenses of Probation, and of Remand Homes.

CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION.

Resolved,
That a Supplementary sum, not ex-exceeding £10, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1937, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Civil Service Commission.

CLASS VI.

CLEARING OFFICES.

Resolved,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £8,900, be granted to His Majesty,


to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1937, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Anglo-Spanish, Anglo-Roumanian, Anglo-Italian and Anglo-Turkish Clearing Offices under the Debts Clearing Offices and Import Restrictions Act, 1934.

CLASS VII.

RATES ON GOVERNMENT PROPERTY.

Resolved,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £193,530, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1937, for Rates and Contributions in lieu of Rates, etc., in respect of Property in the occupation of the Crown for the Public Service, and for Rates on Buildings occupied by Representatives of British Dominions and of Foreign Powers; and for the Salaries and Expenses of the Rating of Government Property Department, and a Grant in Aid of the Expenses of the London Fire Brigade.

STATIONERY AND PRINTING.

Resolved,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £348,510, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1937, for Stationery, Printing, Paper, Binding and Printed Books for the Public Service; for the Salaries and Expenses of the Stationery Office; and for sundry Miscellaneous Services, including Reports of Parliamentary Debates.

CLASS II.

FOREIGN OFFICE.

Resolved,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1937, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Department of His Majesty's Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs.

CLASS III.

APPROVED SCHOOLS, ETC., ENGLAND AND WALES.

Resolved.
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £30,050, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1937, for Grants in respect of the expenses of the Managers of Approved Schools in England and Wales; the expenses of Local Authorities in respect of children and young persons committed to their care; and the expenses of the Councils of Counties and County Boroughs in respect of Remand Homes.

CLASS VII.

ART AND SCIENCE BUILDINGS, GREAT BRITAIN.

Resolved,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £29,400, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1937, for Expenditure in respect of Art and Science Buildings, Great Britain.

OFFICE OF WORKS AND PUBLIC BUILDINGS.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £40,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1937, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of the Commissioners of His Majesty's Works and Public Buildings.

7.10 p.m.

Mr. Lawson: I do not see the representative of the Office of Works.

Sir George Penny (Treasurer of the Household): He is just coming.

Mr. Lawson: There is an item here on page 24 dealing with additional staff.

Mr. Ede: Move to report Progress.

Mr. Lawson: I do not know whether it is necessary to move the Adjournment. There is an item on page 24 dealing with an expenditure of £31,000 for the purpose of additional staff engaged in connection with work on War Office factories and overtime in the various drawing offices.

Mr. Ede: Where is the Minister?

Mr. Lawson: I expect the Minister's officers will be making notes on this matter. The hon. Member for Southport (Mr. R. S. Hudson) will perceive that he is getting quite popular. I want to ask the Minister if he can tell us what this item is for and how many workers are involved. The Estimate says that the expenditure is for additional staff engaged for work in connection with War Office factories. Can he tell us how many additional staff there are and where the members of this staff are engaged? Where are these factories which are being established? It would be useful if the hon. Gentleman could tell us how many of these factories there are. I am not one of those who want to make a


special point that these factories should be built in the Special Areas. There are some who make that claim, but it would be of interest to know how many factories there are, how many additional workers there are engaged and what their rates of wages are. There is an item, too, dealing with overtime. Are the workers concerned technical workers? How many are there, and can this overtime be reasonably justified? Those of us who know anything about industry know that there are cases where you can justify overtime, where men who are extremely expert in technical matters are necessary; but they are very rare cases, and there are some industries as well as some professions in which the tendency is to fall back on overtime without any real justification. I think the House would be interested to know the class of workers concerned, the class of work they are engaged in, and what is the reason for this expenditure on overtime.

7.15 p.m.

Mr. Maxton: There is an item on page 24 of casual savings. That strikes me as a new phrase in these Supplementary Estimates, but savings of this casual kind, amounting to £5,500, seem to be a very substantial amount to be saved in a casual way. I want to know exactly where these savings have been made. Does it mean that because additional expenditure has been involved in War Office extension that work in connection with the Post Office and in the building of Employment Exchanges has been cut down? Does it mean that a sum of £5,500 has been saved at the expense of developments which ought to have taken place if this special work had not been undertaken by the Department?

7.16 p.m.

Mr. Ede: I should like to ask a question with regard to the arrangements which have been made for the recruitment by the Department of the additional labour for the drawing offices and the additional professional staff for work on these various buildings. It is a matter of complaint among local authorities that it is almost impossible for them to get the services of quantity surveyors and draughtsmen because their advisers say that their staffs have been taken by Government Departments. I have to go to the Board of Education in the course of

a few days in regard to an excess of expenditure which has been incurred by a local authority owing to a failure to get quantity surveyors in sufficient time to go into the tenders, whereby the estimate has been increased by 30 per cent. The allegation now is that where local authorities employ outside professional people to do this work it is being much delayed. Have the Government done anything to implement the promise made when the armaments campaign was started that costings would be carried out by the Department to prevent excessive prices being paid? My experience is that no effective steps have been taken, and I hope the Minister will assure us that this work is being so organised that while the Government get a sufficient amount of professional advice enough will be left over to enable the ordinary civil and business work to be carried on. It is quite wrong to take all the professional advice in this matter and leave local authorities stranded.

7.18 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. R. S. Hudson): I apologise to the Committee for not being in my place when the Estimates were called. I would point out that there are three items which are common to the various Estimates of the Office of Works: First, the new Defence programme, which in nearly all the Estimates causes a certain increase; secondly, the increased cost of fuel and, thirdly, the increased salaries which are being paid at the moment. As regards fuel, that increase is accounted for by the fact that when the Estimates were originally framed in 1935 we did not know that there was going to be an increased price, but when the tenders came in last year we found that we had to pay an increase of about 17.5 per cent, for fuel.

Mr. Lawson: Was that increase in coal or coke?

Mr. Hudson: I think in the majority of cases it was an increase in the price of coke. As regards salaries, some of the draughtsmen are now entitled to the increased salaries which were agreed to with the respective associations. Certain members of the parks staff also now enjoy higher salaries than when the Estimates were originally framed. For example, in the case of draughtsmen; Class I started at £373 and increased by £18 per year


to £515; now they start at £450 and increase by £18 per year to £550. Class II started at £277 and rose to £373; now, they start at £320 and rise to £420. Class III started at £202 and rose to £277; now they start at £210 and rise to £320. The Committee will realise that these increases represent a substantial portion of the increased amount for which I am asking the authority of the Committee. Then there is the Defence programme which inevitably involves a great dislocation in the work of the Office of Works, because they have acceded to the request of the War Office to act as their agents in the setting up of special ordnance filling factories which are to be erected at Chorley, Bridgend, Bishopton and Irvine. Naturally an increased staff is required for the preparation of the plans and the supervision of the work. Some of the staff had to be taken away from existing work, and we have had to get an increase of staff, which was not easy to find, and which possibly may have had some of the results referred to by the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) although I cannot think it could have had much effect because the increase of staff amounted to only 112. These three items account for the increase to which reference has been made. As I have said, the total number of new staff amounts to 112 and it includes architects, engineers, quantity surveyors and others.

Mr. Maxton: Are they all Government appointments?

Mr. Hudson: Not permanent. The hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) asked whether as a result of the Defence programme work which otherwise would have been done for the Post Office was left undone. I suppose it would be impossible to answer that in the negative, but he will be aware that every year, owing to unforeseen circumstances, some work fails to be completed or sometimes undertaken during the financial year, and I do not think there is anything special in this casual saving.

7.24 p.m.

Mr. Morgan Jones: I am surprised to hear the Parliamentary Secretary say that certain work has had to be set aside. Some hon. Members are interested in a scheme which is long overdue, namely, the Whitehall Development Scheme. There are large numbers of offices in Whitehall where employés of the Govern-

ment are working under conditions which are exceedingly deleterious to health, and this means that for the sake of the armaments campaign work on the Whitehall scheme has to be put off altogether. This is rather serious. I should like to know whether we are to understand that this important scheme has to some extent been put off. The Minister spoke of fuel, but I do not think he was over-confident in his reply as to whether it was coal or oil. What is the position in Whitehall? Are they turning, as many other offices in our towns and cities are, towards oil fuel, or are they maintaining the old method of heating by coal? We shall be glad to know. We in South Wales are interested in coal not for the purpose of holding up any progress in the matter of heating our public buildings, but because it is of some moment to us in regard to unemployment. Our unemployment arises from the lack of orders for coal, and if the Government can give us an assurance that for the present coal remains the main source of heat in Government offices, we shall be encouraged thereby. I hope the Minister will reply on these points. I think an expenditure of about £2,000,000 is involved in the Whitehall scheme, and it is thus an important contribution to the absorption of any unemployed in the building trade.

Mr. Hudson: There is included in the Supplementary Estimate an item for part of new buildings which are to be devoted to an extension of Scotland Yard. We are asking in a later Vote for authority for that expenditure. There is nothing in this particular Vote dealing with the Whitehall scheme. In regard to the question of fuel, the bulk of the increase has been due to an increase in coke prices, which I believe have been from 3s. 6d. to 6s. per ton, and in the case of coal an increase of 2S. to 3s. per ton. It has meant an increase of 17.5 per cent. in the cost of fuel.

7.30 p.m.

Mr. Lawson: Has the Office of Works any item showing on what this increase in the price of coke and coal is based? Miners had an increase during last year. They were given half what they asked for. They asked for an increase of something like 10 per cent., but they were only given 5 per cent., or 1s. in the pound, yet it would seem that in the case of nearly all increases in the


expenditure of public offices, wherever they take place, whether of local or municipal bodies or the Government, it is always given out that the increase in the miners' wages has had something to do with that increased expenditure.

Mr. Hudson: I never said that.

Mr. Lawson: No, and I know that the hon. Gentleman has too accurate a knowledge of these matters to make any such statement, but it is an extraordinary state of things. I think the hon. Gentleman said there had been an increase of 5s. or 6s. per ton paid for coke, and I should be interested to know what the items are that go to make up that increase. If the increase goes to the workers, the producers of the coal, there is no quarrel about it. I know it is difficult to ask the hon. Gentleman to give us, on the spur of the moment, an itemised bill of costs and comparisons, but I was startled by his statement that there had been an increase of 5s. or 6s. a ton—

The Temporary Chairman (Colonel Sir Charles MacAndrew): I cannot see that this Vote has anything to do with coke.

Mr. Lawson: The hon. Gentleman mentioned that as one of the explanations for the increased expenditure, and it seems to me that it is important, on a Vote of this kind, that we should at least have some general indication as to the cause of that increase. May I ask the hon. Gentleman what increase there has been in the price of the contracts that the Office of Works has had to make with the various firms? The workers are the last people who want to see anyone exploited, and they are very anxious to see that the Office of Works is not exploited. Quite frankly, there is an opportunity for the Office of Works to render a public service by pointing out to people exactly what the increased contract prices have been. If the hon. Member could give us an item of that kind, it would be of no small importance to the public, and I can assure him that it would be of no small importance to the miners and other producers of these various by-products.

7.35 p.m.

Mr. Hudson: I quite appreciate the desire of the hon. Member to obtain in-

formation of this sort, and I think everyone appreciates it. The only difficulty in which I find myself is that the question how that increase of price arises is really not the concern of the Department for which I happen to be answering. I foresaw that hon. Members opposite would ask a question of this nature in the course of the Debate, and I had a word with my hon. and gallant Friend the Secretary for Mines before the Debate started and asked him if he could account for this increase. He gave me some very interesting general information on the subject and the results to the miners.

The Temporary Chairman: I really cannot allow this discussion to continue.

Mr. Hudson: I am afraid, Sir Charles, that it is my fault, but before you came into the Chair I suggested that I might deal, at the beginning of these Estimates, with certain elements which ran through all of them, and those elements included fuel. But really it is not a matter for the Department which I am now representing to explain why these prices have risen. All that we do is to put our demands out to tender, and we accept the lowest satisfactory tenders. The reason for the price rising is a matter, I submit, for the Secretary for Mines and not for this Department.

Mr. Lawson: On a point of Order. Is not this a very general Estimate for the salaries and expenses of the Office of the Commissioners of His Majesty's Works and Buildings, and does it not deal with the whole carrying-on of the Office?

The Temporary Chairman: The point that we have to deal with has reference to the additional staff engaged.

Mr. Maxton: On a point of Order. Is it your Ruling, Sir Charles, that while we can discuss the reasons for the increase in the price of fuel, it must be on Class VII, Vote 7, and not on Class VII, Vote 6?

The Temporary Chairman: That is so.

Mr. Hudson: I submit, with all respect, that to give the reasons for the increase in price would be out of order on the Office of Works Vote.

Mr. Maxton: If you pay too much for your coal, we have got to know why.

7.38 p.m.

Mr. Viant: I am rather concerned with the question of overtime, which has been mentioned, because while I am not charging the Office of Works with working an undue amount of overtime, in view of what has happened and is happening in other Government Departments, I feel it desirable that the point should be raised now, in order that we might safeguard the position and, if possible, persuade the Office of Works to set a good example in this respect. One Government Department in the last 20 months worked no less than 4,000,000 hours overtime. It is true that it was the Post Office, but the Prime Minister within the last two years made an appeal to private employers in this country not to work their employés overtime, and I think it is high time that Government Departments should set a good example in this regard. When the subject of overtime is mentioned and we find that the Office of Works has admitted that some of the increased expenditure is due to overtime, I think we are justified in making an appeal to the hon. Gentleman to use his influence to see that overtime is not embarked upon while men are unemployed.
I am willing to admit that there is a possibility that some of the men required for the technical work in a draughtsman's office and such like may not be easily procured, but I am not persuaded that such men are not at present seeking employment, and I make an appeal to the hon. Gentleman to use his utmost power to see that this labour is secured and that no overtime is embarked upon until the available labour is exhausted. Every Government Department, I think, can and should set a good example in this regard to private employers. I hope we may have a favourable reply and that we may know exactly the extent to which overtime is being worked by this Department at present. It will then be possible to put down a question at a later stage, a month or two months hence, and to find out exactly whether the overtime is being restricted, extended, or removed altogether.

7.41 p.m.

Mr. Hudson: The hon. Member for West Willesden (Mr. Viant) really cannot have listened to what his own colleague, the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) said. That hon. Member complained

that, as a result of our recruiting extra staff, local authorities were being hindered in their work. I have already said that we have met with great difficulties in recruiting extra staff. Considering the difficulties of the situation, I think the Department for which I am speaking is to be congratulated on having worked so little overtime. A certain amount was obviously necessary in view of the delay in finding the necessary staff. We have recruited 112 extra people, and when I say that out of a total sum involved of £20,000,000 the total amount of overtime worked for which I am asking supplementary provision is only £15,000, I think hon. Members will agree that it is not a very big figure.

7.42 p.m.

Mr. Ede: I should not have risen again but for the last sentences in the answer of the hon. Member to my hon. Friend the Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson). It is not my idea of the duty of a Government or of any other Department when they get a tender merely to take the lowest and to pass no comment on it. I asked in my earlier remarks—and while the hon. Gentleman replied to the easy part of what I put to him, he left this part unanswered, because it was rather more difficult—Has this Department done anything to establish a costings department so as to make quite sure that the figures which they are asked to pay in respect of these munition and other buildings are reasonable? I asked that because the answer that is now being given to every local authority which complains of the rise in the cost of public buildings is that the Government are now in the market for such big building work that it is impossible to get the materials and that the prices have risen.
The instance that I gave in my earlier speech was that 12 months ago a technical institute was estimated to cost £107,000, and when the tenders were opened, towards the end of last month—there were 18 tenders from the biggest firms in the London neighbourhood—they ranged from £138,000 to £149,000, which I think is very good tendering, and when the architect was asked to account for the extraordinary discrepancy between those figures and the estimate, his answer was that the competition of Government Departments for building materials was leading to this rise in prices. We were assured last year by various Ministers that the


utmost efforts would be made by the Government to check rises in prices and to see that no unduly high prices were paid. Obviously, as far as these buildings are concerned, it is the duty of the Office of Works to see that a proper costings department is set up so that the prices they are asked to pay can be checked. I am sure that at the moment the Government are setting the pace for a general increase in the cost of public buildings by the prices they are prepared to pay. I would like to have an answer from the Parliamentary Secretary on that point.

Mr. Hudson: I can give the hon. Member an assurance that we have a costings arrangement with the War Office, and that full advantage is taken by the Office of Works, of it.

Question,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £40,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1937, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of the Commissioners of His Majesty's Works and Public Buildings,

put, and agreed to.

CLASS VII.

PUBLIC BUILDINGS, GREAT BRITAIN.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £153,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1937, for Expenditure in respect of sundry Public Buildings in Great Britain, not provided for on other Votes, including Historic Buildings, Ancient Monuments, Brompton Cemetery and certain Housing Estates.

7.47 p.m.

Mr. Pritt: I beg to move to reduce the Vote by £100.
There is at least one item in this Vote which I think calls for careful consideration by the Committee. In Class VII, A—Public Offices, etc.: New Works, Alterations, Additions and Purchases, for which an additional sum of £104,000 is required—when one looks at the details, on page 26 of the Supplementary Estimates, one finds that among the works in progress is the Home Office Civilian Anti-Gas School, Eastwood Park, Falfield, Gloucestershire: Acquisition, Adaptation and Extension, etc., of Premises (Revised Total Estimate:

Works Services, £47,000; Furniture, £5,450). The remarks I intend to make to the Committee will cover, to some extent, Sub-head 13, but for the present I propose to confine myself to Eastwood Park.
We have had many explanations from the Government from time to time which have shown clearly that the object of Eastwood Park is to train teachers who will teach civilians how to take precautions against the effects of gas resulting from air raids. We have had the publications of the Air Raid Precautions Department, statements in the House, speeches from the hon. Gentleman the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, broadcasts, and so on, and all the statements have at any rate been consistent and shown that we are now being asked to spend money in order to pay people to teach the public about gas-proof rooms and gas masks. It has also been made clear that the general policy for civilians to follow is that gas-proof rooms are the first line of defence, the idea being that the public shall resort to the gas-proof rooms and stay in them, but that if either—

Mr. Hudson: On a point of Order. The Department for which I am answering is responsible for the provision of buildings, and not for the policy underlying the provision of those buildings.

Mr. Pritt: On that point, may I say that I desire to demonstrate to the House that the expenditure of another 6d. on these buildings is a criminal waste of public money, because the policy behind them is wrong.

The Temporary Chairman: The Supplementary Estimate only deals with the increase not the original policy.

Mr. Pritt: If it is wrong to spend the first 5d., it is wrong to spend the next 2½d.

The Temporary Chairman: No. The original 5d. was decided upon, and that 5d. is to be increased to 7½d.

Mr. Pritt: I wish to show that since the 5d. was authorised facts have been brought forward which show that at any rate one should stop there and not spend another 2½d.

The Temporary Chairman: In the original Estimates, this school is accounted for, and the only thing which


the Committee may discuss is the reason the Estimate was too small.

Mr. Pritt: I will confine myself to the second civilian anti-gas school which is proposed, and on which no money has been spent hitherto, and I will put forward my arguments as to why the £13,000 should not be spent. The Government propose to teach people at Easingwold that, first of all, they should have gas-proof rooms and get into them, but that gas masks should be a second line of defence in the event of the gas-proof rooms being broken up or if they happen to be out and unable to get into the gas-proof rooms when trouble begins. I wish to demonstrate to the Committee, on scientific grounds, that this policy is really little better than a sham.

The Temporary Chairman: The hon. and learned Gentleman is speaking about policy, and policy cannot be discussed on this Supplementary Estimate.

Mr. Pritt: If I may say so with respect, this is not a typical Supplementary Estimate, but is a request to the Committee to authorise the expenditure of money on something on which money has never been expended before. Surely it would be a very narrow Ruling to say that because this comes up at this period of the year in the form of a Supplementary Estimate, the Committee has no power to say that it will not spend money that ought not to be spent. The policy of Easingwold has never been approved, and it is an entirely new question.

Mr. Hudson: As I understand it, the policy of Easingwold has been approved, and that policy is to set up a school for teaching. The question as to whether or not five or six teachers are required is a matter for the Home Office, which will rightly be discussed when one of their Estimates comes up in the Committee. The setting up of the school has already been decided, and the question now is to provide the necessary money to carry out a policy already decided.

Mr. Pritt: The hon. Gentleman has far more experience than I have, but surely that cannot be right. The policy was decided some time ago that money should be spent on an anti-gas school at Eastwood Park. A month or two afterwards someone demanded another school, and the Government replied that there was

no need for another school at that time. Then, some months later, the Government announced that they proposed to ask for authority to spend money on Easingwold. That is a change of policy. It is a proposal to spend further money on another school which may not be, for all we know—we have not been told anything about it—the same. If the sum were larger, it might be a great calamity if your Ruling were correct, for there might be an extreme case in which the Committee would be told that it could not interfere with the establishment of 2,000 schools, because in the previous year, with less knowledge, it had approved the establishment of one school.

The Temporary Chairman: It would be a new policy if 2,000 schools were to be established, but in the present case it is one school that we are considering. The policy of anti-gas schools has been approved by Parliament, and the only question now is why the original amount estimated was not enough for what the Government required.

Mr. Pritt: The policy of establishing an anti-gas school at Eastwood Park has been approved. Would not your Ruling unduly fetter, in a manner which might in some cases be quite calamitous, the right of this Committee to sanction and control the expenditure on public money? To say that because it has authorised the establishment of one white mouse, it is for ever afterwards the policy of this Committee to have as many white mice as the Government want seems to be quite wrong.

The Temporary Chairman: That is not the point. The establishment of the anti-gas school at Eastwood Park has been approved and now the Government are asking for another £10,700 in the Supplementary Estimate, because in the first instance they did not ask for enough money.

Mr. Pritt: I am sorry if you do not seem to have grasped my point. Perhaps I may have been speaking too fast or too low.

Mr. Beverley Baxter: Too long.

Mr. Pritt: Or perhaps too loud; I am sorry if I wakened the hon. Member. Perhaps I did not make myself clear, but I bowed to your Ruling regarding the anti-gas school at Eastwood Park, and I am submitting now that we have a new


policy to establish further schools. I am submitting that it is too narrow a Ruling to say that having once sanctioned a school, the Committee can never again prevent the Government establishing as many schools as it likes.

Mr. Hudson: Perhaps I can assist the hon. and learned Gentleman. I do not think he has quite appreciated the facts of the Office of Works submitting this sort of Estimate. There are two alternative ways of submitting Estimates. The first is to submit a very close Estimate and then come to the Committee for supplementary sums which may be found necessary during the course of the year, and the second method is to inflate the original Estimate. I think I am correct in saying that various Committees of the House came to the conclusion that the first was the better method. The hon. and learned Gentleman has already admitted that he cannot continue criticising, on the lines he wished to follow, the increase for which we are asking in the case of one school. In fact, the reason we are asking for that increase is that instead of 30 students being accommodated, we now propose, at the request of the Home Office, to provide accommodation for 60 at Eastwood Park. The original Estimate was based on a school at which it was anticipated 30 people would attend, and the additional sum for which we are asking is for the purpose of raising the accommodation to 60. The hon. and learned Gentleman has rightly realised that he cannot criticise the policy underlying that increase, but equally he should realise that he cannot criticise the policy underlying the increase of 60 to 90 or 120, which involves the establishment of the new school at Easingwold. The policy has been started, and the principle is the same.

Mr. Pritt: Let me give an illustration to show that the policy cannot be the same. In the event of the Committee sanctioning two battleships, could the appropriate Department come back later on and ask for 17 battleships, and say that the policy had been decided? Surely that would be entirely wrong.

The Temporary Chairman: I cannot allow the hon. and learned Gentleman to deal with questions of that sort. My Ruling was perfectly clear, and I must ask him to abide by it.

Mr. Pritt: Is it not permissible for me to submit to the Committee that there ought to be no increase because it is sheer waste to spend any more money?

The Temporary Chairman: Certainly, but the original policy cannot be discussed.

Mr. Pritt: Subject to what you may say later, I propose to do that. I submit to the Committee that no further money ought to be spent for the reason that the gas-proof rooms which the Home Office is asking the Office of Works to assist in establishing are a sham and a delusion and ought not to be established at all.

Mr. Hudson: The Office of Works is not responsible for whether or not the gas policy is correct. All they are responsible for is providing in the most economical way the accommodation which is required. Whether that accommodation is required at all or not, it is not for me to say. It is a matter which ought to be raised on another occasion.

Mr. Ede: May I submit that when the original Estimate was introduced it was explained and defended by the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department who is now in his place? He gave a most elaborate description of the building and of the way in which the surrounding country was to be protected from the evil effects of gas. I think that it is he and not the hon. Gentleman who is now somewhat feebly endeavouring to do so, who ought to defend this Supplementary Estimate.

Mr. Pritt: I have no personal hostility at all to the hon. Gentleman but when he says that all the Office of Works can do is to provide the Home Office with what the Home Office demands, surely this Committee is entitled to say that money shall not be given to the Office of Works to provide the Home Office with accommodation and furniture and structural alterations in order to develop further training of this kind. Both these items in the Vote are concerned with gas training, and I propose to submit to the Committee that no further money ought to be expended upon this matter at all.

Mr. Duncan: Surely the hon. and learned Gentleman is again touching upon policy, and if he is allowed to do so, is it not likely that the discussion will become general?

The Temporary Chairman (Mr. Gordon Macdonald): I understand that my predecessor in the Chair made valiant efforts to keep this discussion in order, and I hope that hon. Members on both sides will keep within the terms of the Ruling which has been made.

Mr. Pritt: If there is one effort more valiant than another it is the effort of the Government to shield this Vote from criticism. I was about to say that these gas-proof rooms, whether the experimental room at Easingwold or rooms in ordinary households, are intended to protect the public from all gases including smokes and dusts which are often called gases. The gas masks, of course, only protect against—

Mr. Hudson: I submit, with respect, that we cannot discuss that question on the present Vote. The hon. and learned Member can criticise my Department for having spent too much money on the buildings or furniture. He can argue that this has cost more than it ought to have cost, but he cannot go back on the question of whether or not such a service ought to be provided at all.

Mr. Attlee: May I submit that we are entitled, on an Estimate of this kind for certain work which the Office of Works is carrying out on the order of the Home Office, to discuss the way in which it is being carried out. I understand that the structural alterations and buildings and furniture involved are in connection with this college of anti-gas training, and it is clear that those who are to study anti-gas methods ought to be safe themselves from gas attacks. We are, therefore, I submit, entitled to consider that matter from that point of view, and to say that the people who are being trained to protect us from gas attack should not themselves be liable to be gassed straight away. Therefore, are we not entitled to consider the position of these premises and the manner in which they are being fitted, and to find out what the Office of Works is doing in this respect, because if this place should prove not to be gas-proof then the whole of this money is being wasted?

The Temporary Chairman: It is obvious that this Supplementary Estimate is for a definite purpose, and that had the original Estimate been big enough to include all this there would be no need for the present Vote at all. The

limit to which the discussion on it can go has already been laid down. I think the point which the Leader of the Opposition has made is quite fair, and that it can be dealt with within the scope of the discussion as already indicated.

Mr. Pritt: I shall endeavour to keep within that scope. I wish to point out that the people at Easingwold will have this advantage, that they will have rooms set aside as gas-proof rooms, but it has been calculated that something like 8,000,000 people in the rest of the population are housed too badly for it ever to be possible for them to set aside spare rooms for this purpose.

Mr. Hudson: I am sorry to interrupt so often, but I do not think the hon. and learned Member can discuss that subject. He can only discuss whether or not the amount of the increased cost is a proper amount or not. He cannot discuss the reasons why the cost is being incurred. There is nothing in the Estimate about an increased number of gas-proof rooms.

Mr. Pritt: I am assuming that at Easingwold there will be a room which will be made gas-proof at my expense, in so far as I am a taxpayer.

Mr. Hudson: That has already been passed. It is included in the original sum.

Mr. Pritt: Not. Easingwold.

Mr. Hudson: But the principle is the same.

Mr. Pritt: If the principle is the same then I am going to discuss both items, but I understood that there was a difference between the two cases. What I want to say to the Committee is that unless this Vote is rejected—and the Committee will reject it if the Government allow it to know the facts—more money will be spent on a gas-proof room at Easingwold. I desire to demonstrate to the Committee that none of the methods which the Government have disclosed so far and which are being tested in London, and which the Under-Secretary to the Home Office urges Members to go and see in Kensington, will make a room gas proof at all at Easingwold or anywhere else. I assume, because I attribute at any rate honesty to the Government in this matter, that the method employed to try to ensure a gas-proof room at Easingwold will be the


same as the methods which are recommended to the general public for use in Sunderland or in Gorbals or in Hoxton. The thesis which I desire to put forward as regards Easingwold, is that a room so arranged as to prevent the entry of gas, cannot be produced by the method which the Government advocate and propose to apply, and the basis on which I challenge the whole policy is that it is a cruel waste of money and is deluding the public.

Mr. Fleming: On a point of Order. Is the hon. and learned. Member entitled to show how he challenges the whole policy of the Government?

The Temporary Chairman: I think the term "whole policy" was rather unfortunate.

Mr. Pritt: I may have been wrong in using those words. I desire to confine myself to the policy which is being applied at Easingwold. It is recommended that it should be applied everywhere, but I am confining myself to the case of Easingwold. Experiments which have been worked out demonstrate that this room will never be worth the money spent on fitting it up, and sealing it. Those experiments have been carried out recently on four separate and typical rooms, namely, the basement of a shop, the dining-room of a semi-detached house, the sitting-room of a council house, and the bathroom of a modern villa. The last case was particularly interesting because that room had steel-framed windows of modern construction which could be sealed and were sealed with plasticine. It had tiled walls, and a concrete floor, and was obviously better adapted for being made gas proof than any room likely to be found in Easingwold. All these four rooms were sealed with the greatest care and in exact accordance with the Government's method which is presumably to be worked out at Easingwold. It is not unfair to say that each of the first three rooms leaked like a sieve after the attempt had been made to render them gas proof, and even the fourth room, which was almost ideal for purposes of sealing, leaked like a subsidised ship.

Mr. Duncan: Surely, the Office of Works is not responsible for that. It is the Home Office.

Mr. Pritt: I do not know whether I am in order in answering the hon. Gentleman's point of Order.

The Temporary Chairman: I think the hon. and learned Member is entitled to refer to other experiments of a similar kind which have been conducted, but I hope that he will not seek to make the Debate too wide. The Debate must be kept within the limits imposed by the Supplementary Estimate.

Mr. Pritt: I desire to do my best, but the objection raised by the hon. Member must be one that occurred to him after he woke up, because it has been raised several times in the preceding 20 minutes and answered. The whole fallacy behind the Government's experiments is the idea that walls do not admit air. The trouble is that the walls of this building at Easingwold, as of any ordinary building, admit air with such rapidity that on a windy day the volume of air which can enter or leave an ordinary room which has been made gas-proof by the Easingwold method in 15 minutes is equivalent to the total volume of air in the room at any particular moment. If the room at Easingwold is typical of the experimental rooms, and it is exposed to gas of such intensity that it would kill a person exposed in the open air in six minutes it would kill a person inside the gas-proof room in 60 minutes. If the gas is so weak that it would take 24 minutes to kill a man outside the room, it would kill him inside the room in two hours. If it is so weak that it would take 50 minutes to kill a man outside the room, it would kill him in the room in three hours.
We ought not to spend one penny on Easingwold to teach people to proof rooms in that ridiculous fashion. If the room at Easingwold happens to be as good as the particularly fine modern bathroom which I have mentioned, the figures would be different, but even then the gas which would kill a man outside as slowly as one-and-a-quarter hours would still kill him inside in a quarter of a day. I can give another illustration of the same thing. If you go three miles to windward of this room at Easingwold and release 20 lbs. of phosgene gas along a line about 1,000 yards long, and leave the phosgene to drift in an ordinary light way towards the building, when it reaches that building at Easingwold—

Mr. Hudson: On a point of Order. Although the hon. and learned Gentleman keeps repeating "Easingwold," it


does not make his speech in order, because the Office of Works is not concerned with the effect of a cloud of phosgene released three miles away. It is merely a question of whether the expense of providing a particular house at Easingwold is or is not excessive.

Mr. Ede: I suggest that we are entitled to know that the house at Easingwold is to be so constructed as to make it suitable for the purpose for which it is to be purchased. When I asked the Under-Secretary last year some questions on that point he frankly said that he did not know at that time. I suggest that we are entitled to know that the walls and so on of this building are so constructed as to make experiments really worth while. The Office of Works is responsible for the materials of which the building is to be composed.

The Deputy-Chairman: The Government are anxious to limit the Debate as far as possible, and the Opposition are anxious to widen it as far as possible. This £13,000 is definitely limited to the "acquisition, adaptation, etc.," of premises at Easingwold. "Etc." is rather a difficult matter on which to rule. Nevertheless, I appeal to the hon. and learned Gentleman not to make any attempt to get round the limited scope of the Debate. It is a limited Vote, but there is an attempt by using the word "Easingwold" to get outside the scope of the Debate on the Vote.

Mr. Pritt: What I want to put before the Committee is that if the Government acquire, adapt, etc., these premises at Easingwold, and if they are at all ordinary premises and the Government apply to them everything that they desire in the way of making them gas-proof, they will be in this position, that a quantity of phosgene liberated three miles to windward will kill everybody in a room within two hours.

Mr. Ede: What rate will the wind be?

Mr. Pritt: As long as the wind is there it does not matter. It will kill within two hours of the arrival of the gas.

Mr. Ede: I have never heard such rot.

Mr. Pritt: The next difficulty presented by the Government scheme is that if by any chance they could make this room gas-proof with all this money and a great deal more, the only result would be to

suffocate the inhabitants of it. The calculations on which, I gather from their publications, the Government propose to teach people at Easingwold and put them in rooms at Easingwold, is that five people can live in a gas-proof room, 10 by 10 by 8 for 12 hours. The Government calculations, if one may work it out from that, is that half a cubic yard of air per hour per person is sufficient. The general Home Office figures seem to allow a little more than that, namely, three-fifths of a cubic yard. The French, who may talk faster than we do but breathe about the same rate, have another calculation allowing three times as much space. The Germans allow four times as much. To put the matter no higher, if this room could ever be made gas-proof, which fortunately or unfortunately it cannot be, long before the 12 hours have passed all the people in the room would, in order to keep alive, be breathing at four or five times the normal rate.
It is no good the Office of Works saying that it has orders from the Home Office. We want to know what the Home Office think about it. If the Home Office is asking the Office of Works to spend money at Easingwold for gas-proof rooms and gas-mask training, I want to know something with regard to these gas-masks. The scientific people say that gas-masks are in many respects pretty satisfactory things, but what is to be done at Easingwold about the people who cannot wear gas-masks at all? A very large number of people in this country are under five years of age, and, according to the statement of the Home Office, they cannot wear gas-masks. A great many people, especially in prominent positions, are far too old to wear a gas-mask. They cannot breathe through them. Gas-masks offer, I am told, a good protection against most true gases, but is the Home Office satisfied that, if all this money is spent on this new school, it will help anybody to discover whether gas-masks will keep out poisonous or otherwise dangerous dusts and smokes?
The Under-Secretary has stated that the gas-masks to be supplied to civilians are effective for 15 minutes against the highest concentration likely to be made, and for several hours against any concentration that civilians are normally likely to meet. It looks as if, with fair luck, when the distances involved are not


too great, those people who are fairly healthy and neither too old nor too young to wear gas-masks will be able with comparative ease to reach the alleged gas-proof room in which they are going to be suffocated to death. I should be glad to know from the Minister responsible for asking the Office of Works to spend this money at Easingwold what is to be done for people who cannot wear gas-masks as well as what is to be done about the alleged gas-proof rooms which have been demonstrated, by the only experiment known, to be in no sense of the word gas proof. I should also like to know what is to be done about making such buildings still gas proof after they have been either shaken or penetrated by incendiary or explosive bombs, and, in general, what the responsible Department really intends to spend the money on at Easingwold. I should particularly like to hear whether the Home Office have made any experiments or investigated the well known fact that all ordinary walls of brick or plaster, whether papered or not, definitely admit the passage of air.

Mr. Duncan: On a point of Order. The hon. and learned Gentleman is asking a number of questions which I am perfectly certain the Minister representing the Office of Works is quite unable to answer.

The Temporary Chairman: I am sure the hon. Member will agree that the fact that a Minister cannot answer questions which are put to him is nothing new, but the point is whether those questions come within this Supplementary Vote, and, in my opinion, having regard to the word "&c." I am inclined to think they do.

Mr. Pritt: I wish to demonstrate my agreement with the hon. Member who interrupted me about the complete and natural and proper incapacity of the Minister, with whom we stand in friendly relations, to answer all these questions concerning the responsibility of the Department whose policy, or lack of policy, has called for this experiment at Easingwold. I have got the impression from looking into this matter that the Home Office has been guilty of taking over some ready-made scheme without proper investigation, possibly from some foreign country. I hope it is true that it has never fairly and squarely faced the question of the passage of air or gas

through walls, because if it has known all about it, then it has been deceiving the public and wasting public money for a considerable time. Those who advise me tell me that it is quite possible, if proper sums of money are expended, to deal with the gas problem even in a crowded country like this, and I ask the Committee not to sanction the expenditure of money on something which has never been proved to be good, and has been demonstrated by simple experiments to be quite worthless.

8.30 p.m.

Mr. James Griffiths: May I claim the indulgence of the Chair to follow up the point raised earlier, upon another Estimate, by the hon. Member for Chester-leStreet (Mr. Lawson)? On page 27 of the Estimates we see that extra money is required for fuel, for gas and for electric current, to the amount of £45,000, and I find other sums in other Supplementary Estimates to provide for similar additional expenditure. I gather from what the Minister said earlier that the reason for these increases is to be found very largely in the increased price the Government are asked to pay for coal. May I ask whether the increase in the expenditure on gas and electric current is to be explained in the same way? Are the Government paying an increased price for coal, and then an increased price for gas because coal has increased in price, and an increased price for electric current for precisely the same reason? Sime time ago an appeal was made by the Government to the coal consumers of the country to pay 1s. a ton more for coal so as to enable miners to get increased wages. The consuming public responded. We are told by the owners that the increased money received for coal is substantially less than they have paid in increased wages. I should like to find out whether that is true, and the House of Commons is the place where, as taxpayers, we can find out.
Could the hon. Member tell us what is the total increase the Government have had to pay for fuel and for gas and electric current, because I am positive that if the figures are compiled we shall find that we are being shamefully exploited—not merely the Government but the public. We are paying twice and three times over. The miners have had 1s. a day more at the most, 6d. in Durham and 3½d. in South Wales, and as taxpayers we are paying 5s. or 6s.


per ton more for coal. I think the hon. Gentleman told us that we are paying 17½ per cent. more for our coal. The increase which the miner is getting does not nearly amount to 17½ per cent. Who is getting the difference? Hon. Members opposite who are connected with the electrical and the gas industries told us that they out of their charity, out of their good will towards the miners, and because they realised that the miners deserved more pay, had agreed to pay 1s. a ton more for coal. The impression was given to the House and to the country that the gas and the electricity companies would pay that increased 1s. out of their own reserves, that they would accept the burden, that this was a free-will offering to the miners, but now we find that they are passing on the cost to consumers. They have paid the extra 1s. for coal and have increased the price of gas and of electric current, and it is not they who are paying, but the public.
Can the hon. Gentleman give us an indication of the total additional sum which he has to find as a Minister on account of this increased cost? What is the total amount of fuel consumed, and what is the increased cost arising from this increase in prices? What is the increased price per ton of coal? What is the increase in the price of gas and electricity? It appears to me that the nation, as taxpayers and consumers, is being shamefully exploited. We are being charged an extra price for coal under the impression that the money is going to the miners, whereas the money is going, not to the miners, but in extra profits to the gas and electricity undertakings. I press for that statement from the Minister. On page 27 there is an item of £32,000 for fuel which, I presume, includes coke and coal. There are further items of £4,000 extra for gas and £9,000 for electricity, a total of £45,000. There are other Estimates, amounting in all to a very substantial sum. As one who represents miners I would like to know why we are being charged these prices, and I ask for a clear indication. The reason that has been given already is that the Minister discussed this matter with the Secretary for Mines, who said that it was due to the miners' wages.

Mr. Hudson: No.

Mr. Griffiths: The coalowners have given as the reason for this conduct that they have to charge the increased prices

for coal because of the extra wages. There is no other reason.

Mr. Hudson: The hon. Member must not put words into my mouth.

Mr. Griffiths: I gathered from what he said that the Secretary for Mines explained the increases.

Mr. Hudson: No.

Mr. Griffiths: That is the reason that has been given. The public have been told that the charge of 1s. or 2s. extra for a ton of coal is because of the extra wages for miners. We are interested in the matter, not only as representing miners but as consumers, and we fear that both miners and public are being fleeced. The miners have not had those increases, but the public have had to pay for them. What is the total amount of the increases that the Government have had to pay for these services?

8.38 p.m.

Mr. Kelly: To what Departments and what places does the £45,000 apply which was referred to just now by my hon. Friend? As he said, it is split up into various items. I would like to know to which Departments these sums for fuel apply, so that we may get at the difference, not only about coal and coke, but also with regard to what the electricity companies and gas companies are charging. I want to ask questions about other items in this Estimate. There is the item "Works in Progress," amounting to £10,800. May we have an explanation of what that represents? It speaks of the
Acquisition, adaptation and extension, etc., of premises.
If £10,800 is required we ought to have an explanation as to what it represents. Is this for new premises or for extending and developing buildings which already exist? How much of the money is for works services, and how much comes under the heading of furniture? Those questions apply also to the next item, in regard to the proposed works in Manchester. Where is that factory, and may we know something more about it? Is this a new item? I feel very much interested to know whether it is situated in some of the densely populated parts in Manchester? I am glad to see that one hon. Gentleman on the Government Front Bench shakes his head. I would like to know where this factory is, and


whether it is in or near some of those open spaces which we know, but which are certainly not very extensive as open spaces.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd): It is in Blackburn.

Mr. Fleming: And that is 30 miles from Manchester.

Mr. Kelly: I know Blackburn very well, but I had no idea that Blackburn was in the Manchester area. That will be quite surprising to the residents of Manchester. I would like to know whether this is the factory which was opened quite recently by the Under-Secretary to the Home Office, for the manufacture of gas masks. If that is so, is it being extended already, and on what is this £10,700 being spent? With regard to the next item, £13,000 for the Anti-Gas School at Easingwold, it is hardly fair to the Committee that we should be asked to pass this additional amount without having had the slightest explanation from the Minister in charge or from the Departments concerned. It is unfair to the people we represent that we should, without full explanation and without knowing whether the money is being well spent, agree to this item. On the next item, £75,000 in regard to Richmond Terrace and the extension of New Scotland Yard, I notice that there is an Appropriation-in-Aid of £75,000 to be taken from the Police Fund. Do I understand that the Government are now paying out of national funds the whole cost of the Scotland Yard building?
That question applies also to the section houses throughout London. Other parts of the country might wake up and, if it be right for the State to find the cost of the new building of Scotland Yard, they might ask us to pay for the police building in every other town. I hope we shall have an explanation of this £75,000. As the plans for these buildings were approved nearly two years ago, may we know whether anything in this item is being expended on preparing for their erection? There seems to be a great hold-up in respect of the new buildings in Whitehall. There is a tendency to make the London Metropolitan Police into a Government institution, and I hope it will be watched very closely. The ten-

dency of the last few years is to remove them from such control as applies to provincial police forces, and make them appear to be a Government force. I hope that that will not be allowed.
Then there is a sum of £20,000 for urgent unforeseen works. That figure, when a Minister is speaking of figures, may not sound large, but I think we ought to be told why this sum is being asked for for something that is urgent. One can hardly imagine a Government which is said to be far-seeing—I do not admit it—requiring £20,000 for something which it may come across and which it has not foreseen. I think we ought to be told how this figure is arrived at. Item C is for further provision for the maintenance and repair of public buildings, and I should like to ask what are the public buildings for which this extra amount is required. Is it wanted for an increase of wages for the men and women who may be employed on the maintenance and repair of these buildings? I hope this point will be fully explained. We have before us the example of what has happened on this building, where men of many years' service, engaged on the maintenance and repair of this Parliament building, have been discharged by a new official for some reason which none of us can understand. I hope that this amount signifies a change in the mind of the Government in regard to their treatment of the workmen and workwomen in their service.
The only other item to which I desire to refer is one on page 27 with regard to rents. Where are these rents expected to come from, and what are the hirings that the Government have in mind in order to bring in this amount of £19,800? We have had no explanation with regard to this Estimate; I have rarely seen one put forward with so little explanation, and I hope the Minister is going to make somewhat clearer what we are being asked to agree to. Someone from his own side suggested that we were asking questions that the Minister was not able to answer, but a Minister is appointed because he is expected, with his advisers, whom he always has handy though we are not supposed to see them, to be able to answer any questions. If the Minister is not able to reply to the questions which have been put to him to-night, it is a serious position for him to have charge of a Department for which he is not able to answer.

8.49 p.m.

Mr. Hudson: I should like to disabuse the hon. Member of the idea that I am in charge of a Department. My responsibility is merely to endeavour to answer questions on behalf of the Department, and I will try to deal with the points which have been raised. The hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) asked about the increased charge for fuel. He is suffering under a slight misapprehension, which may possibly be due to my fault for not having given a sufficiently full explanation in the first instance. I said that the bulk of the increase was in respect of increased prices for coal and coke, amounting to 17½ per cent., but there is a substantial increase left which represents payments for increased amounts of gas and electricity used. I should like to assure the hon. Member and the Committee that there has been no increase in the cost of electricity or gas so far as the Department is concerned; the increased provisions for which we are now asking are in respect of increased quantities of current and gas consumed. In particular, the electrical research station has consumed considerably more electric current during the year than was foreseen, while the opening of the National Gallery at night accounts for an increased consumption of current over and above what was foreseen. Further, the large increase in the number of premises which have had to be hired to accommodate the increased staffs of Government Departments, due very largely to the expansion of the Defence Services, has naturally also involved increased amounts of current and gas. That accounts for the items on pages 22 and 27.

Mr. Kelly: The hon. Gentleman speaks of the opening of the National Gallery in the evening accounting for an increased consumption of gas and electricity, but that is accounted for under a previous Estimate—Class VII, Vote 1, on page 21.

Mr. Hudson: No; the additional item to which I am referring is accounted for on page 22, where sub-head D sets out that further provision is required for:


"1. Fuel
…
£5,000


3. Electric current
…
£2,500"


Included in the £2,500 is the extra current required for the electrical research station and for the National Gallery. The items for additional offices are mainly to be

found on page 27. I was also asked how I accounted for the sum of £10,800 asked for under sub-head A on page 26.

Mr. George Griffiths: Will the hon. Gentleman say how the extra charge of £32,000 for fuel is arrived at?

Mr. Hudson: I have said that it varies, but it is in respect of increases, in the case of coal of between 2s. and 3s. a ton, and in the case of coke of between 3s. 6d. and 6s. I cannot give any more specific figures.

Mr. Griffiths: They are making 1s. 9d. a ton profit.

Mr. Hudson: The increase of £10,800 is due to an increase in accommodation, which naturally increases the charges for furniture, water supply and so forth. The item in connection with the purchase and adaptation of a factory in the Manchester area is due to the action of the Department in putting forward originally a very low estimate, with a view to trying not to inflate it. It was subsequently found that more work was needed than had been originally anticipated, in the way of increased amenities, lavatory accommodation and so forth, and the building proved to be not so well adapted to the purpose as had been thought, and larger alterations were required; it was an old factory. That is the reason for the increase for which we are now asking. It includes such items as the provision of sanitary accommodation for 400 women and 100 men, with a new drainage system, machine foundations, a new floor and loading platform, new water services, the construction of laboratories and stores, and additional steelwork to permit of the handling of heavy loads.
I was also asked about the item with reference to Richmond Terrace. Last year a Bill was passed providing for the erection of new Government buildings. In order to ensure that the extension of Scotland Yard was in keeping with the remainder of the buildings to be erected on the Richmond Terrace site it was decided to design the whole of the buildings at once, and this is really a book-keeping transaction. It represents a payment by the Office of Works to the Commissioners of Crown Lands of £75,000 for the site. In due course a cheque for £85,000 will be received, £75,000 being repayment to the Office of Works for the money paid over to the Commissioners of Crown Lands and the balance being a payment


in return for surrendering certain leasehold rights which they have on the site.

Mr. Kelly: To whom are the leasehold rights going?

Mr. Hudson: They will be extinguished, because the building will be handed over to the Receiver of the Metropolitan Police, and the £10,000 is being paid as compensation to the Office of Works.

Mr. MacLaren: What is the Office of Works going to do with the £10,000?

Mr. Hudson: That is shown as an Appropriation-in-Aid. The hon. Member went on to ask about the increase of £13,000 for Easingwold. The Estimate includes alterations to the mansion, additional rooms, drainage and sewage disposal works, painting, and a whole host of other items. He went on to ask about Item C, further provision for the repair and maintenance of public buildings, an item of altogether £5,000. That is accounted for by a number of additional premises which have been taken over by the Office of Works acting for Government Departments, mainly for the extension of Defence services. The same explanation applies to Item F—rents. The hon. Member asked for particulars. The most important are additional rooms for the Air Ministry, £10,000; for the Home Office and Air Raid Precautions, £1,400; War Office, £1,200; Judge-Advocate-General, £1,000; Admiralty, £3,200; and a certain amount for the Import Duties Advisory Committee for housing as the result of giving up their own accommodation to the War Office.

Mr. Kelly: May we know where the places are?

Mr. Hudson: Adastral House, 333–337, Strand; Cheetham House, Manchester; 73, Strand; Lansdowne House; 80, New Oxford Street; Caxton House; and Palace Street.

Mr. Kelly: There is the item of £20,000 for urgent unforeseen work.

Mr. Hudson: That, again, is in respect of the necessary measures of adaptation and change involved in the premises which have been taken over in order to adapt them for the use of the Departments which now occupy them.

Mr. Attlee: What arrangements are being made for the adaptation of the factory by way of anti-gas precautions?

Mr. Hudson: I believe they are arranging an air raid precautions scheme. I will certainly find out for the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Attlee: The hon. Gentleman has put forward an Estimate for buildings and adaptations. We are entitled to know what is actually being done.

Mr. Hudson: I quite agree that the right hon. Gentleman is entitled to seek that information. I will make a point of obtaining it and sending it to him, but he will be the first to realise that on a matter of detail it is a little difficult to give the information without any previous notice. I do not think, in any case, the expenditure involved is very much.

Mr. Attlee: Surely the hon. Gentleman should be able to tell us. The Government are putting up anti-gas factories and anti-gas schools, and it is common complaint with us that there is no close connection between the different sides of Government work. We are always finding that. We ought to know whether the Government themselves are taking these precautions.

Mr. Hudson: There is actually in being at present a committee engaged in drawing up the necessary plans for old as well as new buildings.

Mr. Kelly: With regard to some of the buildings that have been taken in hand, it seems as though rents which are not modest are being paid for Lansdowne House, that luxury place in the West End, and for certain places in the Strand. I should like to know why we are hiring these places while we have the old Metropole Hotel, which seems to be growing worse and dirtier every day by reason of not being attended to. That has been in our possession for some time, and yet we are going outside to hire places at what appear to be very high if not excessive rents.

Mr. Hudson: All I can say is that we are satisfied that we have obtained these places at what is a very fair rent indeed. There are, of course, great difficulties involved which necessitate many of the premises being fairly close to existing Government Departments. It has, no


doubt, escaped the notice of the hon. Member that as the Hotel Metropole is required for the rehousing of staffs from existing Government buildings during building operations, it would not be possible to house the staffs from other Departments.

9.6 p.m.

Mr. Ede: I want to express regret to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for North Hammersmith (Mr. Pritt) that, when he made a certain retort to an interruption of mine which was intended to be helpful, I replied rather more vehemently than I should have done. I desire to assure him that I intended to be helpful in that interruption, because it is essential, in making the kind of calculation that he was doing, that one should know the rate at which the wind is blowing in order to calculate the concentration of the gas at the time it reaches the building three miles away from the point of discharge. I am sorry that apparently his advisers have not given him the information, and I want to assure him and the Committee that the very much too strong comment which I made was entirely confined to the particular retort that he made to what I hoped he would have recognised was essential. I hope that the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department will say something in response to what my hon. and learned Friend has said. I want to know, with regard to the building at Easingwold, whether any attention has been given to the question which I directed to him nearly a year ago—on the 27th February, 1936—when I asked him
whether instructions are given to make the room in which the gas is kept, the walls of which must be so made as to resist certain gases, capable of resisting gases other than chlorine, phosgene and the chemical compound commonly called mustard gas?
The hon. Gentleman said in reply, with that frankness which was disarming on that occasion—
I have, frankly, no information at the moment in regard to that."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th February, 1936; col. 727, Vol. 309.]
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will realise that questions are not put across the Floor of this House with regard to these matters merely for fun. I was on that occasion endeavouring to be as helpful as I could to the hon. Gentleman and I should like to know whether it is now possible to give any answer with regard

to the question which I then put to him. The way in which the Government have treated this topic has not increased the public confidence in regard to the seriousness with which they take it. I sometimes wonder whether they did not scare the public rather too much, and now wish that they could reassure public opinion rather more than they are able to do. I hope that we may know whether the Government expect, by the experiments they are conducting at these places, that they will have to meet any gases other than chlorine, phosgene and mixtures of these in accordance with whether the enemy may desire merely to stop or to kill the activities in the neighbourhood, with the possible addition of mustard gas. If the country could have some information upon that point, the public would be very considerably reassured.

9.11 p.m.

Mr. Batey: One of the items which attracted my attention when the Parliamentary Secretary was speaking was that dealing with fuel, gas and electric current. His explanation as far as gas and electric current are concerned was fairly satisfactory, because he explained that more gas and electricity had been used. He gave an altogether different explanation with regard to fuel. He said that the extra cost was due not to the use of more fuel, but to the extra prices charged for the fuel. He stated that between 2s. and 3s. a ton extra had been charged for coal and between 5s. and 6s. extra for coke. This sort of thing needs more explanation, because it is difficult for some of us to understand how the coal factors in London are able to get such enormous prices for coal. When one sees the coal carts in London exhibiting notices showing the price of coal to be 2s. 7d. a cwt. one pities the household consumers, because one feels that they are being robbed by the coal merchants in London. While they charge 2s. 7d. per cwt. and even up to 2s. 9d. the miner is fortunate if he receives a penny a cwt. for producing the coal.
Before the Committee agree to pass this Estimate we should know exactly the price of coal which accounts for these increases, and where the coal is purchased. It is time that steps were taken to deal with the coal merchants in London. I remember that when the Minister of Labour was Secretary for Mines he


answered a question just before he left that office, and stated that the distribution costs of the coal merchants in London had not been reduced for the last 20 years—a rather staggering statement. Can the Parliamentary Secretary tell the Committee the price charged for this coal, so that we may know really whether they are charging, as they charge household consumers, a most extravagant price? I have myself hewed tons upon tons of coal for much less than a penny a cwt. Some of these coal factors in London who are able to get these huge prices must be making enormous profits, and before the Parliamentary Secretary asks the Committee to pass this Supplementary Estimate, he should tell us what the price is and whether it is extravagant, as one anticipates that it is. In my opinion, we shall be abundantly justified in voting against the Supplementary Estimate.
I notice an item in regard to furniture, on page 27 of the Supplementary Estimate, under the letter "K"—"Services carried out on repayment terms." Surely the Government are not buying furniture on repayment terms. I could understand poor people doing that but not a rich Government. It also applies to clothing. Are the Government buying clothing on repayment terms? If not, will the Minister explain what is meant by repayment terms, and assure the Committee that the Government are not buying furniture and clothing on the hire purchase system?

9.16 p.m.

Mr. MacLaren: I want to raise the question of the rentals paid for Lansdowne House. Would it be possible to get the actual rental charged for the use of Lansdowne House, and also a statement of the additional cost of taking out the bathrooms, disembowelling the building and making it suitable for Government use? The flats there have been disembowelled and the modern equipment removed to make the building suitable for offices.

Mr. Hudson: I understand that it is not the usual practice to disclose individual rentals, but I am informed that the company which owns the building did the whole of the work themselves and subsequently let the space at so much per square foot to the Government. The rent which they asked and which we

agreed to pay was considerably less than commercial rents in other buildings of that type.

Mr. MacLaren: I wish to press the matter. It has been the talk of London that the Government have taken a highly valuable site like Lansdowne House for offices, a new building, fully equipped for modern flat letting, with new bathrooms and equipped in every sense as a modern building for flats. I saw the baths being pulled out and the hot water arrangements, which had been put in a few weeks before, being taken out. Now we are told that the figure of the rental cannot be divulged. It has been talked about pretty freely as to how that building was foisted on the Government. If we are asked to vote public money when highly valuable buildings are foisted on the Government, I protest. I am not blaming the Department or the Minister, but this House has a certain responsibility to the taxpayers, and this kind of business ought to be stopped. A public inquiry ought to be made into the whole matter regarding that building and why it was taken and disembowelled. We are told that the rent charged is less than for other similar areas. I should like the Minister not to believe that. I should like to know whether these landowners are philanthropists. I am told that the Government are being asked a rental which is very high, considering the cubic space controlled by the Government in the building. It is my duty to raise this matter. There is another proceeding going on, at the Metropole Hotel. This ghastly thing is being disembowelled also.

The Deputy-Chairman (Captain Bourne): Under what part of the Estimate is the hon. Member raising this point?

Mr. MacLaren: Under the heading of rentals.

The Deputy-Chairman: Is it not covered by the ordinary provision in the main Estimates, in which case it does not arise here?

Mr. MacLaren: The Minister was asked specifically what the hereditaments were for which rents had to be paid, and he enumerated a number of buildings, and one of them was Lansdowne House. Because of that statement I am raising the question now.

The Deputy-Chairman: I think the hon. Member misunderstood me. Lansdowne House, I understand, is covered by the Supplementary Estimate under head A. So long as the hon. Member kept to Lansdowne House he was in order, but the Hotel Metropole is covered under the main Estimate, and he cannot raise that question on the Supplementary Estimate.

Mr. MacLaren: You will perhaps excuse me for making a passing reference to it. I was not going to dilate upon it. I am merely calling attention to this specific case, which is one of many that may happen if this is allowed to go on. There is an idea going about that we must rush in and make preparations for some eventualities which we are told may come or may not come. In the past we have seen preparations being made by a famous Prime Minister in this House, at a time when money was no matter and was squandered with both hands. Afterwards, we saw what happened when we tried to realise on some of that property. I protest against the mockery of calling hon. Members to come here to discuss Estimates for vast sums of money going out of the Exchequer, to be paid away in the form of rents for buildings or offices that might well have been elsewhere on less valuable sites. The management of State Departments in this area is a disgrace, seeing that such a building has been taken for Government offices, and I protest. When we make demands for expenditure on necessitous cases we are told that there is no money in the Exchequer, but there is any amount of money available when the landowners of London want to filch public money, in the guise of doing service to the State. Therefore, I protest against this scandal, especially when we are told that this rental is an item that cannot be divulged publicly.

Mr. Hudson: In reply to the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) I may say that the matter at Easingwold to which he referred is being dealt with.

9.24 p.m.

Mr. G. Hardie: With regard to Lansdowne House, I tried some time ago to find out what was taking place there. It had been fitted in a first-class way for luxury flats, and we are now told that some philanthropist is ready to destroy these newly-made flats so far as living

apartments are concerned, and to hand them over to the Government at a price that cannot be divulged. Those of us who remember the swindling that took place during the years 1914–1918, and the huge sums that were paid out for things used during the War that were handed back for an old song, are filled with doubts. It is a shame that anybody sitting on the Front Bench, on either side of the House, should be forced into such a position as to not to be able to reveal the swindle now taking place regarding Lansdowne House. We have become used to statements that in the national interest it is not proper to reveal certain things, but here is an ordinary exchange taking place and yet we cannot be told about it. What is the mystery about Lansdowne House? Who gave the approval, and to whom was it given? What was the purpose? Are we to be told that there is some philanthropic individual who does not want his name revealed in case honours might float to him? I am surprised that any self-respecting Gentleman on the Front Bench should seek to hide behind what is an obvious swindle. One can very well deduce what is taking place in other directions. I have had no blinkers on me regarding expenditure on the rearmament policy.

The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Member is going much beyond the Vote under discussion.

Mr. Hardie: I was only drawing from Lansdowne House a line showing that the same thing was likely to be taking place in every other direction. Hon. Members on the Front Bench, claiming to be honest and intelligent, have not the courage to treat the Committee with the confidence it deserves. They would change their attitude quickly if any question of votes in their constituencies was concerned. Only evil deeds shun the light. Only those who deal in evil deeds are always trying to hide behind something that they say it will be detrimental to the nation to reveal. I hope the hon. Gentleman will see the necessity of taking the nation into his confidence.

9.30 p.m.

Mr. Attlee: Where does the hon. Gentleman opposite derive his custom of not giving figures? What custom is there standing between the House of Commons and information on these matters, and what is the reason for withholding it?

Mr. Hudson: The practice has been never to disclose prices of tenders, and that practice has been followed in not revealing actual rents. I can give the Committee an assurance on this matter. We were in great difficulty in finding accommodation at the time, and the Government approached Lansdowne House to see whether that accommodation could be transformed into office accommodation for the purposes of the Government. I hope the Committee will take my assurance that the company carried out this work at its own expense, and subsequently let the office accommodation to the Government at a price below that paid for comparable accommodation in the area. There is no ramp. The Government have got fair accommodation for a reasonable rent.

Mr. Attlee: There is no analogy whatever between the question of not disclosing tenders and that of not saying what rent the Government are paying for certain accommodation. Does the hon. Gentleman say that we are never to be allowed to know what rent the Government are paying for accommodation? That is a new principle.

9.34 p.m.

Sir Percy Harris: I do not suggest dishonesty on the part of the hon. Gentleman, who is the soul of integrity, but I do not remember so much mystery and secrecy being wrapped round an ordinary business transaction. The primary duty of this House in Committee is to guard the public purse. There was a great deal of surprise when these buildings were transferred to the Government and some criticism in the public Press. It was considered a very extravagant operation for the Government to choose such buildings in a very social centre for carrying on the work of a Government Department.

It is vital that in matters of this kind there should be the greatest publicity. The Parliamentary Secretary has taken the safe line and has talked about precedents. I cannot remember any precedent of this kind, but if the Committee fails to do its duty here, the Public Accounts Committee will turn on the limelight and we shall know eventually what the actual figure is. I suggest that this is not a matter even for a distinguished Parliamentary Secretary who is quite capable of holding higher office. The hon. Gentleman however is only a Parliamentary Secretary, and I suggest that a responsible Minister should be here or the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. I see that the Minister of Labour is present; he is always in his place, but it is not a matter for his Department. At any rate, I do not understand that his Department is occupying these delightful West End flats. Then I do not know why the Secretary of State for the Colonies is present. His mind is on other parts of the Empire.

The Deputy-Chairman: This has nothing to do with the Estimate.

Sir P. Harris: I am suggesting that on a matter of this importance a responsible Cabinet Minister or the Financial Secretary to the Treasury should be present. I hope the Committee will be firm, and in order to insist on the presence of a responsible Minister to explain all this mystery about an ordinary business transaction, I beg to move, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."

Question put, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 110; Noes, 168.

Division No. 75.]
AYES.
[9.38 p.m.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)
Cluse, W. S.
Grenfell, D. R.


Adamson, W. M.
Cove, W. G.
Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)


Banfield, J. W.
Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)
Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)


Batey, J.
Ede, J. C.
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)


Bellenger, F. J.
Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Hardie, G. D.


Benson, G.
Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)
Harris, Sir P. A.


Broad, F. A.
Evans, E. (Univ. of Wales)
Hayday, A.


Bromfield, W.
Foot, D. M.
Henderson, T. (Tradeston)


Brooke, W.
Frankel, D.
Hills, A. (Pontefract)


Brown, C. (Mansfield)
Gallacher, W.
Hollins, A.


Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (S. Ayrshire)
Gardner, B. W.
Hopkin, D.


Buchanan, G.
Garro Jones, G. M.
Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)


Cape, T.
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)


Cassells, T.
Green, W. H. (Deptford)
John, W.


Chater, D.
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.
Jones, A. C. (Shipley)




Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)
Oliver, G. H.
Simpson, F. B.


Kelly, W. T.
Owen, Major G.
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Paling, W.
Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees- (K'ly)


Lathan, G.
Parker, J.
Stephen, C.


Lawson, J. J.
Parkinson, J. A.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)


Lee, F.
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Leslie, J. R.
Potts, J.
Tinker, J. J.


Logan, D. G.
Pritt, D. N.
Viant, S. P.


Lunn, W.
Richards, R. (Wrexham)
Walkden, A. G.


Macdonald, G. (Ince)
Ridley, G.
Watson, W. McL.


McEntee, V. La T.
Riley, B.
Welsh, J. C.


McGhee, H. G.
Ritson, J.
Westwood, J.


MacLaren, A.
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Brom.)
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Maclean, N.
Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)
Williams, T. (Don Valley)


Mainwaring, W. H.
Rowson, G.
Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)


Marshall, F.
Sanders, W. S.
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


Mathers, G.
Seely, Sir H. M.
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Maxton, J.
Sexton, T. M.



Milner, Major J.
Shinwell, E.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Montague, F,
Short, A.
Sir Francis Acland and Mr. R.


Naylor, T. E,
Silkin, L.
Acland.




NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J
Guy, J. C. M.
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.


Albery, Sir Irving
Hacking, Rt. Hon. D. H.
Porritt, R. W.


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'kn'hd)
Hanbury, Sir C.
Procter, Major H. A.


Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir W. J. (Armagh)
Hannon, Sir P. J. H.
Radford, E. A.


Aske, Sir R. W.
Haslam, H. C. (Horncastle)
Raikes, H. V. A. M.


Baldwin-Webb, Col. J.
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Ramsden, Sir E.


Barclay-Harvey, Sir C. M.
Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-
Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Hepworth, J.
Rayner, Major R. H.


Blindell, Sir J.
Holdsworth, H.
Reed, A. C. (Exeter)


Bossom, A. C.
Holmes, J. S.
Reid, Sir D. D. (Down)


Boulton, W. W.
Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.
Reid, W. Allan (Derby)


Braithwaite, Major A. N.
Horsbrugh, Florence
Remer, J. R.


Briscoe, Capt. R. G.
Hudson, R. S. (Southport)
Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Hume, Sir G. H.
Ropner, Colonel L.


Brown, Col. D. C. (Hexham)
Hunter, T.
Ross, Major Sir R. D. (Londonderry)


Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (S'k N'w'gt'n)
Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)
Jones, L. (Swansea W.)
Rowlands, G.


Browne, A. C. (Belfast, W.)
Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.


Bull, B. B.
Kimball, L.
Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)


Burgin, Dr. E. L.
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Salt, E. W.


Campbell, Sir E. T.
Law, Sir A. J. (High Peak)
Sanderson, Sir F. B.


Cartland, J. R. H.
Law, R. K. (Hull, S.W.)
Shakespeare, G. H.


Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)
Leckie, J. A.
Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)


Clarke, Lt.-Col. R. S. (E. Grinstead)
Leech, Dr. J. W.
Shepperson, Sir E. W.


Clarry, Sir Reginald
Lees-Jones, J.
Shute, Colonel Sir J. J.


Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)
Levy, T.
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.


Colfox, Major W. P.
Liddall, W. S.
Smiles, Lieut.-Colonel Sir W. D.


Colville, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. D. J.
Lloyd, G. W.
Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)


Cook, Sir T. R. A. M. (Norfolk, N.)
Loftus, P. C.
Somerset, T.


Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
Lovat-Fraser, J. A.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.)
Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)
Spens, W. P.


Courthope, Col. Sir G. L.
MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'l'd)


Cranborne, Viscount
M'Connell, Sir J.
Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)


Critchley, A.
McCorquodale, M. S.
Storey, S.


Crooke, J. S.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. M. (Ross)
Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)


Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Cross, R. H.
McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil)
McKie, J. H.
Sutcliffe, H.


Dawson, Sir P.
Magnay, T.
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)


Denville, Alfred
Maitland, A.
Thomson, Sir J. D. W.


Dorman-Smith, Major R. H.
Manningham-Buller, Sir M.
Tree, A. R. L. F.


Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side)
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Turton, R. H.


Duggan, H. J.
Markham, S. F.
Wakefield, W. W.


Duncan, J. A. L.
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.
Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan


Eckersley, P. T.
Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Elliston, Capt. G. S.
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)


Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Mitchell, H. (Brentford and Chiswick)
Waterhouse, Captain C.


Erskine-Hill, A. G.
Moore-Brabazon, Lt.-Col. J. T. C.
Wedderburn, H. J. S.


Fildes, Sir H.
Morgan, R. H.
Wells, S. R.


Fleming, E. L.
Morris-Jones, Sir Henry
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Furness, S. N.
Monro, P.
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir A. T. (Hitchin)


Ganzoni, Sir J.
Nall, Sir J.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir J.
Neven-Spence, Major B. H H.
Wise, A. R.


Glyn, Major Sir R. G. C.
Orr-Ewing, I. L.
Young, A. S. L. (Partick)


Goldie, N. B.
Palmer, G. E. H.



Gower, Sir R. V.
Peaks, O.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Gridley, Sir A. B.
Pilkington, R.
Commander Southby and Lieut.-Colonel Llewellin.

Question again proposed, "That a sum not exceeding £152,900 be granted for the said Service."

9.46 p.m.

Mr. Kelly: May we now have a statement in regard to this question of Lansdowne House? It is surprising to find that Lansdowne House is being used for this purpose. When the town planning committee of the London County Council approved that building, they approved it for residential purposes only, but now we have had it converted for these business purposes, and we want to be told who are the owners of Lansdowne House. The more one hears of this, the more suspicious one becomes of it, and I hate being suspicious. The information as to the rent which is being paid is refused to us. With regard to the buildings in the Strand, Nos. 333 to 337 or whatever they are, and the building for the Ministry of Health, it is astonishing how much the Strand is in possession of Government Departments. We know the rental of those places, so why cannot we be told the rent that is being paid for Lansdowne House, which we understand is being used by the Government contrary to the directions and the approval given by the London County Council for the use of that building for living purposes only.

9.48 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Sandeman Allen: May I ask whether at any time during the régime from 1929 to 1931 such information was either asked for or disclosed? The "Daily Herald" the day before yesterday pointed out that the Opposition were most inefficient, and with that I fully agree. I suppose that this discussion is merely the result of the crack of the whip of the "Daily Herald," to show that the party opposite are of some use in this House.

9.49 p.m.

Mr. MacLaren: Taking the Committee into his confidence, does the Minister now assert that the Government approached the owners of the property at Lansdowne House in order to get offices in that building, and, if so, may we be told on what grounds the Government considered that Lansdowne House was the most efficient site for their purpose? The enormous expenditure on the initial preparation of that building and in converting it into offices must surely have weighed heavily

on the minds of the Government before they undertook this enterprise, so we want to know from the Minister now, in case there should be any statement made afterwards, that he made a slip to-night in the heat of the discussion, whether it is true that the Government approached the owners of the property, that the Government did so on the best policy open to them at the time, that there was not within the confines of Westminster or contiguous to the House of Commons a more efficient site at a less ample charge to the State, that Lansdowne House was the best possible proposition, and that the Government, weighing all things in their minds, approached the owners of the property accordingly. I want the Minister to say whether that is the advice given to him to-night. The next point is as to the initial cost to the State to convert these flats into a condition suitable for offices. That, I think, we ought to know. The Minister made a remark tonight which I suggest is challengable, namely, that it was the Government that pursued the owners of the property and not the other way round, and I want the assurance of the Minister that his statement is correct, so that we can have it on record.

9.52 p.m.

Mr. Ellis Smith: I welcome this opportunity of trying to obtain some information for people living in the vicinity of these offices and also for the readers of certain newspapers that have been probing this particular expenditure. In the first place, I would like to ask whether any of the expenditure mentioned on page 26, namely, £20,000 for urgent unseen works, took place in Cumberland House or on any building in the vicinity of Cumberland House. The other question that I would like to ask is whether the building that has been converted at the corner of Tottenham Court Road is included in this Supplementary Estimate. Then there is a revised Estimate to the extent of £344,790 for maintenance and repairs of public offices. More and more in industrial parts it is being recognised that the whole of Britain is becoming a vast arsenal, yet the people of this country are not being informed of that fact.

The Deputy-Chairman: That question does not arise under the Supplementary Estimate.

Mr. Smith: I was going to relate that to the fact that this large expenditure has taken place upon these buildings and that it has been preparatory to bringing about what I have just mentioned, that—

The Deputy-Chairman: I am afraid the hon. Member cannot do that.

Mr. Smith: This is the first opportunity that we have had during the past 12 months of trying to obtain this information, to which the public are entitled.

9.54 p.m.

Sir Francis Acland: I apologise to the Minister concerned that I have not heard the whole of the Debate, but I want to ask whether he definitely takes up the line that it is against the public interest to tell the Committee the rents that are paid for Government property which is to be taken on lease. I am thinking of an office in which I myself and my hon. and gallant Friend opposite do some work, namely, the Forestry Commission in Savile Row, and there—

The Deputy-Chairman: I must point out to the Committee that although they are quite entitled to ask the Minister about the specific properties covered by the Estimate, they cannot go into the general question of the policy of the Department on a Supplementary Estimite. That must be done, if at all, on the main Estimate.

Mr. Attlee: On a point of Order. The whole question has been whether we could get certain information on this Estimate. The Minister has stated that, as a matter of custom, we are never given this information. I understand that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Cornwall (Sir F. Acland) was giving an instance of where the information has been given. Is it not permissible for the Committee to be shown what the custom is?

The Deputy-Chairman: I think the right hon. Gentleman is not quite correct. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Cornwall (Sir F. Acland) was going into the practice, not of this Department, but of another Department altogether. The Committee must remember that on a Supplementary Estimate we are bound very tightly to the Estimate before the Committee and cannot go into what other Government Departments may do in any circum-

stances. The Committee is entitled to ask about various items, but beyond that it is not entitled to go.

Earl Winterton: I am interested in this matter from the point of view of the discussion of Supplementary Estimates, and I would like to ask whether it is not in order for hon. and right hon. Gentlemen to ask a question of the Minister and in asking that question to give as an illustration what occurs in another Department?

The Deputy-Chairman: I assure the Noble Lord that hon. and right hon. Gentlemen can only give as an illustration what might be the practice of the Department under discussion.

Earl Winterton: In that case, I must say with great respect that it very greatly limits any reasonable discussion on the Supplementary Estimates.

Mr. Attlee: As I understood it, the illustration was not given as the practice of a particular Department, but as an illustration of the general practice where the Government have buildings on lease. I understood the Minister to say that it was a custom not to give the information. Surely, we are entitled to challenge that custom of the Government in its treatment of the Committee in not giving information on Supplementary Estimates.

The Deputy-Chairman: In reply to the right hon. Gentleman, I will not say all, but practically all buildings taken on lease are taken by the Office of Works, and, therefore, it is a question for that particular Department. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Cornwall (Sir F. Acland) was raising the practice of a completely different Department, namely, the Forestry Commission, and I do not see how, if we start to take the illustration of what the Forestry Commission does, we can avoid discussing what that Department does, or other Departments do, when they have any kind of property for which in no possible circumstances can the Office of Works be responsible. The Committee must confine its discussion to that for which the Minister can answer, and he cannot answer for other Departments.

Sir F. Acland: I was not even going to give an illustration about rents. Of course, the Forestry Commission's offices are taken in exactly the same way as any


other offices—by the Office of Works. With regard to other offices, we know the expenses down to the wages of every charwoman, and I want to know whether, in the case of the buildings now under discussion, the position is taken that we are not entitled in the public interests to know what rent is being paid. I have not heard it suggested, and I do not suppose anyone thinks, that unreasonable rents are being paid. I would not for one moment deny that if you want a great many people to work together in the middle of London, and have to take a place such as Lansdowne House, it is very likely that a very high rent will have to be paid, and probably it is perfectly justifiable. I simply wish to be clear why it is not in the public interests to state the rents that are paid for buildings such as Lansdowne House and any other buildings taken by the Office of Works.

10.0 p.m.

Mr. Hudson: I think that probably I can satisfy the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Cornwall (Sir F. Acland) and, I hope, the Committee. The question is whether it is in the public interest to disclose the rents paid for buildings when they are hired by the Office of Works. Clearly, the main public interest is to get accommodation as cheaply as possible, and that is the policy which has always been pursued by the Office of Works. It is the practice of the Office of Works to go to the owner of the building and bargain, and the owner of the building, knowing that the Government is a good tenant, and that he is certain to get his rent paid on due date, is naturally inclined to give the Government the very best terms, terms which are better than those that he would give or might be inclined to give to an ordinary tenant. That is what happens day in and day out, and the Office of Works is firmly of the opinion that if it proceeded to disclose to the Committee, and, therefore, to the public, the terms given by a particular owner, the owner would know that other tenants would come along and say, "You have given this price to the ex-tenant and you ought to give it to us." The net result would be that, as soon as it became known, the Government would cease to get preferential terms.
I venture sincerely and honestly to say that it is not in the public interest, taking the long view, to disclose what this particular house costs. I, personally, had something to do with the matter when it first arose, and I was as reluctant as anyone in the Committee to agree to take what seemed, prima facie, a much too expensive building for the purposes of a Government Department; but when I went into the matter more closely, I was quite convinced that, having regard to the general situation and the lack of accommodation in London at the time, and considering the necessity which was put to the Office of Works by the Service Departments that they must have accommodation within very close reach of the War Office and the Admiralty, there was really no alternative but to take that particular building. As I have said already, the Government did not pay for the alterations, but the owners of the building paid for them. I make a further appeal to the Committee to take my word for it that the actual rent being paid, whatever rumours hon. Members may have heard, is below that paid for other comparable office accommodation available. I hope that information will satisfy the Committee.

Mr. Attlee: The hon. Gentleman was dealing with the question of bargaining. Is not the fact known to the landlord that the Government are looking for accommodation, and does not the landlord know just as well as the Government that there is no other available accommodation, and does that not influence him?

Mr. Hudson: Yes, Sir, I do not deny that for one moment. I ask the Committee to believe, however, that in this particular instance, despite the apparent advantage that the owner might have been expected to have owing to the difficulties of finding alternative accommodation, we did actually get the building at a lower rental than would have had to be paid for other comparable accommodation that was available.

10.5 p.m.

Mr. Gallacher: We have asked two questions to-night to which we have not received answers. One is what is the rent paid for Lansdowne House and the other is what price is being paid for coal. Why such evasion? Why such awful argument about these matters? We are


told very often when we put forward propositions from this side that our proposals are against human nature. Yet we are told that a company which is out for rents and profits has taken the responsibility and borne the cost of reconstructing a building and has then charged a lower rent than would be obtainable for similar buildings where reconstruction has not taken place. Is not that against anything we have ever known of human nature, as represented by those for whom hon. Members opposite speak? I never heard such a story before, and I am positive that there is not an hon. Member opposite who believes it—that any company would reconstruct a building at its own expense and then charge a lower rent for it than would be charged for comparable buildings which had not been reconstructed. Yet the Minister gets up here and tells us—and hon. Members opposite do not seem to be much concerned at it—that the reason is that the Government, through the Office of Works, have entered into a conspiracy with the landlord to keep up rents. The Committee is asked to accept that.
Let hon. Members opposite smile, but I challenge any of them to go to his constituency along with me and try to justify such a trick as that. We are told by the Government that they will not make known the amount which they are paying in rent, because it might bring down the rents of other buildings in this neighbourhood. Is the Committee going to pass this Estimate on subterfuges of that kind? I say that this is a public scandal. There is a lot of talk going round here about some of the people to whom the rents are going. I hear references round about me to a certain party whose name was in the Press not long ago sharing in some of these rents. I hear them talking about it and it has obviously been talked about in London. I repeat that it is a public scandal. We ought to know the amount of rent that is being paid and then we shall be able to judge, as well as the Minister, whether that rent is comparable with other rents in the neighbourhood and whether it is an exorbitant rent or not. Why should we not be allowed to judge as well as the Minister? In regard to the price of coal the hon. Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Batey) has drawn attention to the interesting fact that while the Minister says that the increased cost of electricity and

gas has been due to the fact that they are using more, the increased cost of coal is due to the fact that they have been paying more for it. To whom are they paying and what is being paid per ton? These are questions to which we demand answers, and if the Minister is not prepared to tell us we shall find out for ourselves. The whole question will be made public and we shall see that some hon. Members opposite answer in their constituencies for the trickery and swindling that are going on in connection with these Estimates.

10.10 p.m.

Mr. MacLaren: I am sorry to go over this ground with the Minister again, but I assure the Committee that there are no sensational names floating about in my mind as participants in this rent. I know nothing about that, and there is no sensation behind my criticism. The Minister has stated, and no doubt is serious in doing so, that the Government could find no accommodation near the War Office, to meet the requirements of the case, without going as far afield as Lansdowne House. There were hundreds of offices to let at that time in Westminster. I assert that there were buildings with offices in them into which the Government could have gone right away with their equipment and started work at once, whereas this building had to be pulled to pieces. I saw baths being taken out and lowered from the top floors, steam pipes being taken out, tiles being torn from the walls. Is anyone going to tell me that that was a cheaper proposition for the Government than going into office buildings at Westminster? Instead of having an entirely new building which was let as flats reconditioned for offices, I assure the Minister that if he was advised that he could not get offices nearer than Lansdowne House, he has been misled. I happen to know this area pretty well, and it was a scandal and disgrace at the time to see what went on in regard to these flats.
We are told that it would not do to make the rentals public. Here is a building of two wings, and one wing is let off in flats. Naturally, the tenants of the flats would think they had signed rather doubtful contracts if they found that the Government had come in later and got a better bargain. That may be so, but surely there comes a time when Members


of the House of Commons who are the protectors of the taxpayers of this country—at least we aver that we are—should have some information divulged to us to make it clear that the Government are not being played with and led into bad contracts. I submit that it would be well for the Government to make an open statement of the annual rental in this case. There is nothing to be lost now. To-morrow after this Debate every tenant occupying a flat in the contiguous building will say, "Ha, ha. Nothing will be divulged in the House of Commons," and that will be taken by the tenants to mean that the Government are getting better terms than they are getting. If so, the harm has been done and the Government should let us have the figures. Otherwise, the Committee ought to divide upon this Estimate. I do not think I have ever used any little difficulties of the Government for the purpose of cheap demonstrations, but I feel strongly on this matter and that is why I protest vigorously. I feel in fairness to the taxpayers that the details of this particular transaction should be exposed by giving the figures. I should like to know what was the cost of reconditioning the building as well as the amount of the annual rental.

10.15 p.m.

Mr. Hardie: Since the Minister cannot give the details in regard to rent, can he say what is the length of the lease of this building and whether at the end of the lease the Government are responsible for replacing all that has been displaced and bringing it back to the furnished flat basis on which it was when they took it over? Some hon. Members have been trying to look upon this question as a bit of fun, but I do not know any more damaging statement to the public interest than the statement made by the Parliamentary Secretary. A clear statement of what is being paid for this building would have finished the matter. The hon. Gentleman, however, has aroused every kind of suspicion, and it will now be said that certain people in the flats are having to pay in order that the Government may have cheap offices. They will say that they are not only being taxed in the ordinary way, but are being bled, and that the Government are linking up with the owners of houses in order to keep up rents.

10.17 p.m.

Mr. Kelly: May I have an answer to the question I put earlier, as to why the Government have taken a place which is scheduled and zoned for residential purposes and have turned it into office premises? There is no need for the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade to shake his head, for the Government have taken the building for that purpose, as we have heard to-night. If the Government are going to defy the local authority in this way when the authority has paid some regard to the planning of London, they are going contrary to all the professions they have made with regard to development throughout the country. This is an entirely new building, and I doubt whether some of the flats had been occupied by tenants. It is a new building of luxury flats. I saw the plans when they were presented for approval, and it is amazing to think that there should be such a waste of money and material on that building in order that it may be used for Government office purposes.

10.18 p.m.

Mr. Buchanan: Everybody will agree that it is in the interests of Government employés that they should have good office accommodation. The Government, however, have taken up a high and mighty attitude and refused to disclose the terms. A large number of people must already know what they are. When the bargain was made there were two parties at least to it, if not three. There was the person making the bargain with the Government. He knows, and those who are in his office know. I have no doubt that the agent who is acting for him knows, and everyone in his office knows also. Then there is the solicitor acting for the person who owns the flats and he, no doubt, has an office staff who also know. The only people who are not allowed to know are Members of the House of Commons. If any of us were in adjacent flats and wanted to use this affair to get our rents down, we could easily find out through some person or other concerned in the building the amount of the rent the Government are paying. It is being treated as though it were a Cabinet secret. Every Cabinet, whether a Labour Cabinet, a Tory Cabinet or a National Government Cabinet, has its Cabinet secrets, and yet we have the Press constantly coming


out with what is now called "intelligent anticipation."
The Under-Secretary has said that the Government are getting a better bargain than the private tenants, so already the private tenants have a grumble, only they do not just know the actual amount which is being paid. I confess that I was amazed at his statement that the Government had got better terms, because I have been a member of a local authority which, in a city like Glasgow, is near akin to a Government Department. We used to have to send a law agent out to negotiate for us, because the moment it was known that the Corporation were after any land or buildings up went the price. I am told that the real reason why there is not a single post office in the central street in that city is that the moment the Post Office go after a site up goes the price. We are told that in this case the demand was urgent. The private landlord must have known of the urgency of the demand.
We are fobbed off with the excuse that the landlord paid so many thousands for alterations and so on. Does anyone wish to credit him with spending that money and not putting it on to the rent? Either it was charged to the rent, or else there was a readjustment in some other way so that he got those thousands back. The Under-Secretary has aroused all the suspicion which he needs to arouse; he is starting gossip in its worst possible form. After to-night everybody will be looking round to find out what the rent is, and they will get at something one way or another. It may be they will not get the actual truth, but there will be all kinds of rumours, and so it would be much better that the House of Commons and the country should know the actual rent paid. I am amazed at the attitude of the supporters of the Government. I cannot follow them in what I can only describe as their unfairness. Suppose that this attitude had been taken up by the Government in regard to other aspects of Government work. If the Minister of Labour refused to disclose the income of some poor person about which information was being demanded they would be saying, "Why this secrecy; why this hiding of things?" In this case those who know, in addition to the landlord and his agent, are the Government Department which negotiated the business, the valuation department of the London

County Council, because they have some say in the rent, and the Income Tax people—there are whole ranges of people who know; but we here are not to know.
An hon. Member opposite asked what happened from 1929 to 1931, when a Labour Government were in office. Suppose that the Members on the Labour Front Bench were occupying the Government Front Bench. I see opposite the hon. Member for Horsham—[An HON. MEMBER: "The right hon. Member!"]—the right hon. Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton). Sometimes I should like to give him an extra title or two. If he and his friends had been sitting here would they have allowed this business to go through in this way? One of the curses in politics to-day is that the ordinary man says that we are all alike. He thinks that there is no sincerity. If hon. Members opposite were sitting on this side they would have plagued the Labour party and they would have done it with every political device.
To-night we are asking for a perfectly simple thing. What is the record? Should not the House of Commons be given the information which large numbers of people in London know? In common fairness, the figure ought to be given. I remind the Minister that he has usually been noted, in his old days, for candour. He made a reputation, whether for good or for bad I am not judging, as one of the Y.M.C.A. group, who were out for candour and cleanliness in public affairs—no underhand dealing. I think the members of that group have now all occupied Government posts, and most of their motives have gone since then; but they had them. In view of that fact the Minister ought to tell the House the rent of this place. I trust that the right hon. Gentleman will tell us exactly what the rent is. There is no business company up against it, and I know all about the tenants in flats, but, from the business point of view, I see no reason for not disclosing this figure.

10.27 p.m.

Earl Winterton: As the hon. Member has mentioned me, there are two sentences or so in which I ought to reply. If I thought there was cause for suspicion I should be ready to attack the Government, but I do not in the least think that there is cause for suspicion. Some speeches upon the subject have shown that suspicion, but no doubt with the


very best motives. The criterion seems to be, is it or is it not the custom of this House to disclose these things? We have been assured by the Parliamentary Secretary that it is not the custom to disclose this information. He assures us that that has been the case for a great many years past. By inference, I suppose we may assume it was the case when the party opposite were in power. I do not see what other possible ground there is for the Parliamentary Secretary refusing to give the information to-night. If the Parliamentary Secretary is wrong, there is a case for the most serious investigation, and the case would bear an impression for grave suspicion, but as it has always been a case of refusing such information upon Supplementary Estimates in this House, I cannot see what reasonable ground there is to complain.

Mr. E. J. Williams: If a question were put down to the Minister responsible for the Department, does not the Noble Lord think that we ought to have an answer?

Earl Winterton: No. The Minister would reply, if he knew his job: "I regret that I am unable to give the information. I would remind the House that my predecessor and I have always refused to give the information because it is not in the public interest to do so." That is the answer.

10.29 p.m.

Sir F. Acland: I was very much impressed with what the Minister said, and it recalled to my mind the time when I had an office in Grosvenor Gardens. I found out, quite incidentally, that the people two doors off occupied a house exactly similar, but were paying a higher rent than the Office of Works were paying for the office which I was occupying at that time. I can see quite well the general principle; they could get a house, or a couple of houses, in a row, if they did not disclose the rents, and I think that must be perfectly sound. This sticks in my mind a little. We are not asking this evening that all the rents of all the premises shall be included in this Estimate, or that the rents of all the premises that may be taken by the Office of Works should be disclosed, but that we should be given the information with regard to Lansdowne House.
Has not the point to be made that Lansdowne House is a unique property—that

there are not the same owners wanting to let other houses just like Lansdowne House next door, so that it would do no harm to those owners who have only got Lansdowne House in that neighbourhood if the rent paid for it were divulged? I think that, if the Minister could treat the matter in that way, and if the House could regard it as not infringing the precedent that where you might do a landowner damage you must not disclose the rent, the House would be quite satisfied, if it were told this figure, not to press upon him that a precedent was thereby established which would entitle the House always to know every rent of every premises taken.

10.32 p.m.

Mr. Garro Jones: I should like to ask the Minister whether he could disclose the purpose for which this rent is paid. I agree with many of my hon. Friends that it is very unwise of him to make such a great secret in the case of this unique property standing by itself. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Cornwall (Sir F. Acland) made a very valid point when he said that this is not a kind of property that could be compared with other property in regard to the rent paid for it, and that therefore neither the Government nor the landlords would find themselves in an invidious position vis-a-vis other tenants who might be paying a higher rent. The Noble Lord who supported the Government on this issue would, I am certain, if he found himself on this side of the House, be one of those who would put the strongest pressure upon the Government; his whole Parliamentary record bears out that statement. In the course of our discussions there occasionally arises an issue which is not so much an issue between parties, but is preeminently an issue between the House of Commons and the Government Front Bench; and it is no answer for the Minister to say that this information has not previously been given.
That is an argument on the ground of precedent, but there is something higher than precedent, and that is principle; and it is an overriding principle that, when public money is being expended, unless good reason can be shown why it should be kept secret, a full disclosure should be given. No good reason has been given in this case. The Minister has stated that it is not in the public interest to


give this information, but that has never been held to be a valid excuse for not giving the details of expenditure to the House. As regards the secrecy with which the Minister has attempted to surround this building, everybody knows that the surest way to attract attention to the purpose for which this building is being used is to make a secret of it. We shall certainly have reporters surrounding Lansdowne House to-morrow to find who is going in and who is coming out. As regards the amount of the rent that is being paid, I hope the Minister will reconsider his decision, or, if he cannot do that, that he will tell us the purpose for which the premises are being used.
There have been some curious dealings lately in regard to premises taken by the Government, and, I strongly suspect, in the class of case to which the House had recently to devote its attention in regard to the establishment of an aircraft factory at Maidenhead. This property is owned, I believe, by a firm called Commercial Securities, Limited, that is to say, Stewart and Ardern's motor firm. I believe that their property firm owns these premises—not the same firm. When that firm, which is a public company, comes before its shareholders, they will be entitled to demand the amount of rent that they receive for these premises. Members of the House of Commons are to be the only people who will not get the information. The Press will certainly find out to what purpose the premises are being put. The shareholders will ferret out the rent that is being paid, and it is regrettable in the circumstances that the House of Commons is not to be given the information in the discharge of its duty as the watchdog of the public purse.

10.36 p.m.

Mr. Pritt: I would appeal to the Minister to give us this information. We are told that there is a precedent that it should not be given, and I accept the Minister's statement on that without hesitation, but I should like to see the precedent. I am not like the gentleman playing poker who wanted to see the cards—there is no suggestion of mistrust—but when precedents are examined it may be seen whether they really have any bearing on the point that arises in the case. The Minister says, and I accept the statement without hesitation, that the rent per cubic foot is less than that of

other premises in the neighbourhood. But two questions arise. Firstly, does it mean that an intelligent and resourceful house agent comparing the 10,000 tenements within half a mile of the premises has found, perhaps, a shop frontage with a moderate cubic footage and a rent which consequently, calculated by the cubic foot, is much more than the rent that the Government are paying for the whole of these premises, chimney pots and all? Does it mean that, when you make a hierarchy of all the premises, showing which pay most and which paid least per cubic foot, this block of offices is the third on the list or the tenth or the thousandth?
The Minister says one wants to protect the landlord from having stones thrown at him by his tenants, because the tenants, on comparing the rent that they pay with what the Government pay, will find that they are apparently being overcharged, but may we not attribute a little intelligence to the tenant? The tenant of a flat in a building ten years older, with a slightly different outlook, half a mile away, learns that the Government are paying—I will take an imaginary figure—a shilling a cubic foot a year. Does he say, "I am paying more than that"? Has he the remotest idea how many cubic feet he has? Has he ever had his rent calculated by the cubic foot? Could he discover how many cubic feet there are in a cubic yard? If a tenant calculated his rent like that and discovered that a portion of the Government offices which had once been a flat rather like his worked out at rather less per cubic foot than he was paying, would he not say, "I am paying retail and they are paying wholesale and I suppose they will get it cheaper"? He also might say to himself, "My flat is a little better or a little worse." It is like saying, "You could not, possibly disclose the price of violets in town because you might depress the price of violets in the Noble Lord's constituency." The reason given by the Government for not departing from precedent is one which can only further excite public suspicion.

Question put, "That a sum, not exceeding £152,900, be granted for the said Service."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 117; Noes, 185.

Division No. 76.]
AYES.
[10.40 p.m.


Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir F. Dyke
Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)
Parkinson, J. A


Acland, R. T. D. (Barnstaple)
Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)
Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)
Potts, J.


Adamson, W. M.
Groves, T. E.
Pritt, D. N.


Ammon, C. G.
Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)
Richards, R. (Wrexham)


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Ridley, G.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Hardie, G. D.
Riley, B.


Banfield, J. W.
Harris, Sir P. A.
Ritson, J.


Batey, J.
Hayday, A.
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Brom.)


Bellenger, F. J.
Hei derson, T. (Tradeston)
Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)


Benson, G.
Hills, A. (Pontefract)
Rowson, G.


Broad, F. A.
Hopkin, D.
Seely, Sir H. M.


Bromfield, W.
Jagger, J.
Sexton, T. M.


Brooke, W.
Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)
Shinwell, E.


Brown, C. (Mansfield)
Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)
Short, A.


Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (S. Ayrshire)
Jones, A. C. (Shipley)
Silkin, L.


Buchanan, G.
Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)
Simpson, F. B.


Cape, T.
Kelly, W. T.
Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)


Cassells, T.
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Chater, D.
Lathan, G.
Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees-(K'ly)


Cluse, W. S.
Lawson, J. J.
Sorensen, R. W.


Cove, W. G.
Lee, F.
Stephen, C.


Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Leslie, J. R,
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Logan, D. G.
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)


Day, H.
Lunn, W.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)
Macdonald, G. (Ince)
Tinker, J. J.


Ede, J. C.
McEntee, V. La T.
Viant, S. P.


Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough E.)
McGhee, H. G.
Walkden, A. G.


Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
MacLaren, A.
Watkins, F. C.


Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)
Maclean, N.
Watson, W. McL.


Evans, E. (Univ. of Wales)
Mainwaring, W. H.
Welsh, J. C.


Foot, D. M.
Marshall, F.
Westwood, J.


Frankel, D.
Maxton, J.
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Gallacher, W.
Montague, F.
Williams, T. (Don Valley)


Gardner, B. W.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)
Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)


Garro Jones, G. M.
Naylor, T. E.
Windsor, W. (Hull. C.)


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Oliver, G. H.
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Green, W. H. (Deptford)
Owen, Major G.



Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.
Paling, W.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Grenfell, D. R.
Parker, J.
Mr. Mathers and Mr. John.




NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.
Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Horsbrugh, Florence


Albery, Sir Irving
Cross, R. H.
Hudson, R. S. (Southport)


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'kn'hd)
Cruddas, Col. B.
Hume, Sir G. H.


Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir W. J. (Armagh)
Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil)
Hunter, T.


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Dawson, Sir P.
Jones, L. (Swansea W.)


Aske, Sir R. W.
Denman, Hon. R. D.
Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)


Astor, Hon. W. W. (Fulham, E.)
Denville, Alfred
Kimball, L.


Baldwin-Webb, Col. J.
Dorman-Smith, Major R. H.
Lamb, Sir J. Q.


Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet)
Duckworth, G. A. V. (Salop)
Law, Sir A. J. (High Peak)


Barclay-Harvey, Sir C. M.
Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side)
Leckie, J. A.


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Duggan, H. J.
Leech, Dr. J. W.


Blindell, Sir J.
Duncan, J. A. L.
Levy, T.


Bossom, A. C.
Eastwood, J. F.
Liddall, W. S.


Boulton, W. W.
Eckersley, P. T.
Llewellin, Lieut.-Col. J. J.


Braithwaite, Major A. N.
Elliston, Capt. G. S.
Lloyd, G. W.


Briscoe, Capt. R. G.
Emmott, C. E. G. C.
Loftus, P. C.


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Lovat-Fraser, J. A.


Brown, Col. D. C. (Hexham)
Erskine-Hill, A. G.
Lumley, Capt, L. R.


Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)
Fildes, Sir H.
Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)
Fleming, E. L.
MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.


Browne, A. C. (Belfast, W.)
Furness, S. N.
M'Connell, Sir J.


Bull, B. B.
Ganzoni, Sir J.
McCorquodale, M. S.


Burgin, Dr. E. L.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir J.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. M. (Ross)


Campbell, Sir E. T.
Glyn, Major Sir R. G. C.
Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)


Cartland, J. R. H.
Goldie, N. B.
McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.



Gretton, Col. Rt. Hon. J.



Channon, H.
Gridley, Sir A. B.
McKie, J. H.


Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)
Guest, Maj. Hon. O. (C'mb'rw'll, N.W.)
Macnamara, Capt. J. R. J.


Clarke, Lt.-Col. R. S. (E. Grinstead)
Guy, J. C. M.
Magnay, T.


Clarry, Sir Reginald
Hacking, Rt. Hon. D. H.
Maitland, A.


Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)
Hanbury, Sir C.
Manningham-Buller, Sir M.


Colfox, Major W. P.
Hannon, Sir P. J. H.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.


Colville, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. D J.
Haslam, H. C. (Hornoastle)
Markham, S. F.


Cook, Sir T. R. A. M. (Norfolk, N.)
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.


Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-
Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)


Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.)
Hepworth, J.
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)


Courthope, Col. Sir G. L.
Herbert, Major J, A. (Monmouth)
Mitchell, H. (Brentford and Chiswick)


Cranborne, Viscount
Holdsworth, H.
Moore-Brabazon, Lt.-Col. J. T. C.


Critchley, A.
Holmes, J. S.
Morgan, R. H.


Crooke, J. S.
Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.
Morris-Jones, Sir Henry







Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)
Ross, Major Sir R. D. (Londonderry)
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Munro, P.
Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)
Sutcliffe, H.


Nall, Sir J.
Rowlands, G.
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)


Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.
Thomson, Sir J. D. W.


Orr-Ewing, I. L.
Russell, A. West (Tynemouth)
Tree, A. R. L. F.


Palmer, G. E. H.
Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)
Turton, R. H.


Peake, O.
Salt, E. W.
Wakefield, W. W.


Petherick, M.
Samuel, M. R. A. (Putney)
Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan


Pilkington, R.
Sanderson, Sir F. B.
Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)


Ponsonby, Col. C. E.
Shakespeare, G. H.
Waterhouse, Captain C.


Porritt, R. W.
Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)
Wedderburn, H. J. S.


Procter, Major H. A.
Shepperson, Sir E. W.
Wells, S. R.


Radford, E. A.
Shute, Colonel Sir J. J.
Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)


Raikes, H. V. A. M.
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.
Smiles, Lieut.-Colonel Sir W. D.
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir A. T. (Hitchin)


Ramsden, Sir E.
Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)
Somerset, T.
Wise, A. R.


Rayner, Major R. H.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Womersley, Sir W. J.


Reed, A. C. (Exeter)
Southby, Commander A. R. J.
Young, A. S. L. (Partick)


Reid, Sir D. D. (Down)
Spens, W. P.



Reid, W. Allan (Derby)
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'l'd)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Remer, J. R.
Storey, S.
Sir George Penny and Lieut.-


Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)
Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)
Colonel Sir A. Lambert Ward.


Ropner, Colonel L.
Strickland, Captain W. F.

Original Question put, "That a sum, not exceeding £153,000, be granted for the said Service."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 185; Noes, 116.

Division No. 77.]
AYES.
[10.48 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.
Eckersley, P. T.
Magnay, T.


Albery, Sir Irving
Elliston, Capt. G. S.
Maitland, A.


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'kn'hd)
Emmott, C. E. G. C.
Manningham-Buller, Sir M.


Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir W. J. (Armagh)
Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Erskine-Hill, A. G.
Markham, S. F.


Aske, Sir R. W.
Fildes, Sir H.
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.


Astor, Hon. W. W. (Fulham, E.)
Fleming, E. L.
Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)


Baldwin-Webb, Col. J.
Furness, S. N.
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)


Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet)
Ganzoni, Sir J.
Mitchell, H. (Brentford and Chiswick)


Barclay-Harvey, Sir C. M.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon Sir J.
Moore-Brabazon, Lt.-Col. J. T. C.


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Glyn, Major Sir R. G. C.
Morgan, R. H.


Beaumont, M. W. (Aylesbury)
Goldie, N. B.
Morris-Jones, Sir Henry


Blindell, Sir J.
Grotton, Col. Rt. Hon. J.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)


Bossom, A. C.
Gridley, Sir A. B.
Munro, P.


Boulton, W. W.
Guest, Maj. Hon. O. (C'mb'rw'll, N.W.)
Nall, Sir J.


Braithwaite, Major A. N.
Guy, J. C. M.
Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.


Briscoe, Capt. R. G.
Hacking, Rt. Hon. D. H.
Orr-Ewing, I. L.


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Hanbury, Sir C.
Palmer, G. E. H.


Brown, Col. D. C. (Hexham)
Hannon, Sir P. J. H.
Peake, O.


Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)
Haslam, H. C. (Horncastle)
Petherick, M.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Pilkington, R.


Browne, A. C. (Belfast, W.)
Hepburn, P. G, T. Buchan-
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.


Bull, B. B.
Hepworth, J.
Porritt, R. W.


Burgin, Dr. E. L.
Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)
Procter, Major H. A.


Campbell Sir E. T.
Holdsworth, H.
Radford, E. A.


Cartland, J. R. H.
Holmes, J. S.
Raikes, H. V. A. M.


Channon, H.
Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.
Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.


Chapman, A (Rutherglen)
Horsbrugh, Florence
Ramsden, Sir E.


Clarke, Lt.-Col. R. S. (E.Grinstead)
Hudson, R. S. (Southport)
Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)


Clarry, Sir Reginald
Hume, Sir G. H.
Rayner, Major R. H.


Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)
Hunter, T.
Reed, A. C. (Exeter)


Colfox, Major W. P.
Jones, L. (Swansea W.)
Reid, Sir D. D. (Down)


Colville, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. D. J.
Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)
Reid, W. Allan (Derby)


Cook, Sir T. R. A. M. (Norfolk, N.)
Kimball, L
Remer, J. R.


Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)


Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.)
Leckie, J. A.
Ropner, Colonel L.


Courthope, Col. Sir G. L.
Leech, Dr. J. W.
Ross, Major Sir R. D. (Londonderry)


Cranborne, Viscount
Levy, T.
Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)


Critchley, A.
Liddall, W. S.
Rowlands, G.


Crooke, J. S.
Llewellin, Lieut.-Col. J. J.
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.


Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Lloyd, G. W.
Russell, A. West (Tynemouth)


Cross, R. H.
Loftus, P. C.
Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)


Cruddas, Col. B.
Lovat-Fraser, J. A.
Salt, E. W.


Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil)
Lumley, Capt. L. R.
Samuel, M. R. A. (Putney)


Dawson, Sir P.
Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)
Sanderson, Sir F. B.


Denman, Hon. R. D.
MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.
Shakespeare, G. H.


Denville, Alfred
M'Connell, Sir J.
Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)


Dorman-Smith, Major R. H.
McCorquodale, M. S.
Shepperson, Sir E. W.


Duckworth, G. A. V. (Salop)
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. M. (Ross)
Shute, Colonel Sir J. J.


Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side)
Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.


Duggan, H. J.
McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.
Smiles, Lieut.-Colonel Sir W. D.


Duncan, J. A. L.
McKie, J. H.
Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)


Eastwood, J. F.
Macnamara, Capt. J. R. J.
Somerset, T.




Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Thomson, Sir J. D. W.
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Southby, Commander A. R. J.
Tree, A. R. L. F.
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir A. T. (Hitchin)


Spens, W. P.
Turton, R. H.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'l'd)
Wakefield, W. W.
Wise, A. R.


Storey, S.
Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan
Womersley, Sir W. J.


Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)
Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)
Young, A. S. L. (Partick)


Strickland, Captain W. F.
Waterhouse, Captain C.



Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Wedderburn, H. J. S.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Sutcliffe, H.
Wells, S. R.
Sir George Penny and Lieut.-


Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)
Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)
Colonel Sir A. Lambert Ward.




NOES.


Acland, Rt, Hon. Sir F. Dyke
Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
Parkinson, J. A.


Acland, R. T. D. (Barnstaple)
Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)
Groves, T. E.
Potts, J.


Adamson, W. H.
Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)
Pritt, D. N.


Ammon, C. G.
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Richards, R. (Wrexham)


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Hardie, G. D.
Ridley, G.


Attlee, Rt. Hon, C. R.
Harris, Sir P. A.
Riley, B.


Batey, J.
Hayday, A.
Ritson, J.


Bellenger, F. J.
Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Brom.)


Benson, G.
Hills, A. (Pontefract)
Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)


Broad, F. A.
Hollins, A.
Rowson, G.


Bromfield, W.
Hopkin, D.
Scely, Sir H. M.


Brooke, W.
Jagger, J.
Sexton, T. M.


Brown, C. (Mansfield)
Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)
Short, A.


Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (S. Ayrshire)
Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)
Silkin, L.


Buchanan, G.
Jones, A. C. (Shipley)
Simpson, F. B.


Cape, T.
Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)
Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)


Cassells, T.
Kelly, W. T.
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Chater, D.
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees-(K'ly)


Cluse, W. S.
Lathan, G.
Sorensen, R. W.


Cove, W. G.
Lawson, J. J.
Stephen, C.


Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Lee, F.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Leslie, J. R.
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)


Day, H.
Logan, D. G.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)
Lunn, W.
Tinker, J. J.


Ede, J. C.
Macdonald, G. (Ince)
Viant, S. P.


Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough E.)
McEntee, V. La T.
Walkden, A. G.


Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
McGhee, H. G.
Watkins, F. C.


Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)
MacLaren, A.
Watson, W. McL.


Evans, E. (Univ. of Wales)
Maclean, N.
Welsh, J. C


Foot, D. M.
Mainwaring, W. H.
Westwood, J.


Frankel, D.
Marshall, F.
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Gallacher, W.
Maxton, J.
Williams, T. (Don Valley)


Gardner, B. W.
Montague, F.
Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)


Garro Jones, G. M.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Naylor, T. E.
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Green, W. H. (Deptford)
Oliver, G. H.



Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.
Owen, Major G.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Grenfell, D. R.
Paling, W.
Mr. John and Mr. Mathers.


Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)
Parker, J.

CLASS VII.

ROYAL PALACES.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £12,100, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1937, for Expenditure in respect of Royal Palaces, including a Grant in Aid.

10.56 p.m.

Mr. Charles Brown: I want to ask one question on this Estimate. There is a detail mentioned upon which I should like an explanation. We are told that £8,270 is to be spent on St. James's Palace in connection with changes of residential occupation. Is it too much to ask the Minister the reason for these changes, and who is to occupy the premises when the £8,270 has been spent? Further, is not

this Supplementary Estimate premature in view of the fact that a new Civil List is in preparation? Could not this matter have been deferred until the new Civil List has been passed by the House? We shall be glad if the Minister will give us an explanation on these two points.

10.57 p.m.

Mr. Kelly: I should also like to ask why it is necessary there should be such alterations as to cost no less a sum than £8,000 because of the change of one occupant for another? Then there is also a small amount of £3,830 upon which there is no word of explanation on what it is to be spent or where it is to be spent. Perhaps the Minister will explain what it means. I hope it does not mean that we are taking some portion of some other place, altering it, and then paying rent for it.

10.59 p.m.

Mr. R. J. Taylor: This appears to be an enormous sum of money to spend on houses designated as palaces which are not being occupied. Hon. Members who know anything of the building trade are aware that the rate of depreciation and of disrepair increases with the age of the building, but it seems to me that if we have to spend such an enormous sum on these places so that they may be occupied at infrequent intervals, it would be just as well if we disposed of them altogether. I believe that the first duty of this House is to see that the scales of equity and of justice are held equally and fairly as between the people who occupy Royal palaces and the people who occupy the humble dwellings of this land. Therefore, the first essential—

The Deputy-Chairman: On a Supplementary Estimate the hon. Member can only go into details of the Estimate, not into questions of policy.

Mr. Taylor: If these houses are unoccupied—I suppose I may have some difficulty in keeping in order—I think I could find occupants for these palaces—

The Deputy-Chairman: That does not arise on this occasion.

Mr. Taylor: While we are spending these enormous sums of money on these palaces, we have people who are unable to find houses because the Government

have failed, are failing, and are likely to continue to fail—

The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Member is not in order.

11.3 p.m.

Mr. Hudson: The Vote for which we are asking could not have been foreseen in the original Estimate. It is to cover the cost of repairs caused by the death of His Majesty King George V. On the accession of His Majesty King Edward VIII certain alterations were made in the occupation of the various residences, and the sums that I am asking for now are in respect of those alterations. The bulk of them are for redecoration and alterations consequent on changes of officials, a portion of them, to the extent of £1,850, for the changes consequent on the occupation of York House by His Royal Highness the Duke of Gloucester, £1,410 for alterations to the Coach House at Marlborough House, and £570 for alterations in the guard room at St. James's Palace consequent on the increased guard needed for mounting the guard at Marlborough House. The remainder, £4,320, is for changes in residences occupied by the various officials of the Household.

Question put, "That a sum, not exceeding £12,100, be granted for the said Service."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 182; Noes, 98.

Division No. 78.]
AYES.
[11.5 p.m.


Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir F. Dyke
Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)
Fleming, E. L.


Acland-Troyte, Ll.-Col. G. J.
Colfox, Major W. P.
Foot, D. M.


Albery, Sir Irving
Colville, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. D. J.
Furness, S. N.


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'kn'hd)
Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
Ganzoni, Sir J.


Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir W. J. (Armagh)
Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.)
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Courthope, Col. Sir G. L.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir J.


Aske, Sir R. W.
Cranborne, Viscount
Goldie, N. B.


Astor, Hon. W. W. (Fulham, E.)
Critchley, A.
Grant-Ferris, R.


Baldwin-Webb, Col. J.
Crooke, J. S.
Gretton, Col. Rt. Hon. J.


Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet)
Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Gridley, Sir A. B.


Barclay-Harvey, Sir C. M.
Cross, R. H.
Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)


Beaumont, M. W. (Aylesbury)
Cruddas, Col. B.
Guest, Maj. Hon. O. (C'mb'rw'll, N.W.)


Blindell, Sir J.
Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil)
Guy, J. C. M.


Bossom, A. C.
Dawson, Sir P.
Hacking, Rt. Hon. D. H.


Boulton, W. W.
Denman, Hon. R. D.
Harris, Sir P. A.


Braithwaite, Major A. N.
Denville, Alfred
Haslam, H. C. (Horncastle)


Briscoe, Capt. R. G.
Dorman-Smith, Major R. H.
Heilgera, Captain F. F. A.


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Duckworth, G. A. V. (Salop)
Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-


Brown, Col. D. C. (Hexham)
Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side)
Hepworth, J.


Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)
Duggan, H. J.
Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)
Duncan, J. A. L.
Holdsworth, H.


Browne, A. C. (Belfast, W.)
Eastwood, J. F.
Holmes, J. S.


Bull, B. B.
Eckersley, P. T.
Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.


Burgin, Dr. E. L.
Elliston, Capt. G. S.
Horsbrugh, Florence


Campbell, Sir E. T.
Emmott, C. E. G. C.
Hudson, R. S. (Southport)


Cartland, J. R. H.
Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Hunter, T.


Channon, H.
Erskine-Hill, A. G.
Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)


Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)
Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)
Jones, L. (Swansea W.)


Clarke, Lt.-Col. R. S. (E. Grinstead)
Evans, E. (Univ. of Wales)
Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)


Clarry, Sir Reginald
Fildes, Sir H.
Kimball, L.




Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Orr-Ewing, I. L.
Smiles, Lieut.-Colonel Sir W. D.


Leckie, J. A.
Palmer, G. E. H.
Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)


Leech, Dr. J. W.
Penny, Sir G.
Somerset, T.


Levy, T.
Petherick, M.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Liddall, W. S.
Pilkington, R.
Southby, Commander A. R. J.


Llewellin, Lieut.-Col. J. J.
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.
Spens, W. P.


Lloyd, G. W.
Porritt, R. W.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'l'd)


Loftus, P. C.
Procter, Major H. A.
Storey, S.


Lovat-Fraser, J. A.
Radford, E. A.
Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)


Lumley, Capt. L. R.
Raikes, H. V. A. M.
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)
Ramsden, Sir E.
Sutcliffe, H.


MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.
Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)


M'Connell, Sir J.
Rayner, Major R. H.
Thomson, Sir J. D. W.


MacDonald, Rt. Hon. M. (Ross)
Reed, A. C. (Exeter)
Tree, A. R. L. F.


Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)
Reid, Sir D. D. (Down)
Turton, R. H.


McKie, J. H.
Reid, W. Allan (Derby)
Wakefield, W. W.


Macnamara, Capt. J. R. J.
Remer, J. R.
Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan


Magnay, T.
Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)
Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)


Maitland, A.
Ropner, Colonel L.
Waterhouse, Captain C.


Manningham-Buller, Sir M.
Ross, Major Sir R. D. (Londonderry)
Wedderburn, H. J. S.


Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)
Wells, S. R.


Markham, S. F.
Rowlands, G.
Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)


Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)
Russell, A. West (Tynemouth)
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir A. T. (Hitchin)


Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Mitchell, H. (Brentford and Chiswick)
Salt, E. W.
Wise, A. R.


Morgan, R. H.
Samuel, M. R. A. (Putney)
Womersley, Sir W. J.


Morris-Jones, Sir Henry
Sanderson, Sir F. B.
Young, A. S. L. (Partick)


Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)
Seely, Sir H. M.



Munro, P.
Shakespeare, G. H.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Nall, Sir J.
Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)
Lieut.-Colonel Sir A. Lambert


Neven-Spence, Major B. H H.
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.
Ward and Mr. James Stuart.




NOES.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Richards, R. (Wrexham)


Adamson, W. M.
Hayday, A.
Ridley, G.


Ammon, C. G.
Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Ritson, J.


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Hills, A. (Pontefract)
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Brom.)


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Hollins, A.
Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)


Batey, J.
Hopkin, D.
Rowson, G.


Bellenger, F. J.
Jagger, J.
Sexton, T. M.


Benson, G.
Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)
Short, A.


Broad, F. A.
Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)
Silkin, L.


Bromfield, W.
Jones, A. C. (Shipley)
Silverman, S. S.


Brooke, W.
Kelly, W. T.
Simpson, F. B.


Brown, C. (Mansfield)
Lathan, G.
Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)


Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (S. Ayrshire)
Lawson, J. J.
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Buchanan, G.
Lee, F.
Sorensen, R. W.


Cape, T.
Leslie, J. R.
Stephen, C.


Chater, D.
Logan, D. G.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)


Cove, W. G.
Lunn, W.
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)


Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Macdonald, G. (Ince)
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
McEntee, V. La T.
Tinker, J. J.


Day, H.
McGhee, H. G.
Viant, S. P.


Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)
MacLaren, A.
Walkden, A. G.


Ede, J. C.
Maclean, N.
Watkins, F. C.


Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough E.)
Mainwaring, W. H.
Watson, W. McL.


Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Marshall, F.
Welsh, J. C.


Frankel, D.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)
Westwood, J.


Gardner, B. W.
Naylor, T. E.
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Garro Jones, G. M.
Oliver, G. H.
Williams, T. (Don Valley)


Green, W. H. (Deptford)
Owen, Major G.
Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.
Paling, W.
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


Grenfell, D. R.
Parker, J.
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
Parkinson, J. A.



Griffiths, J. (Llanclly)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Groves, T. E.
Potts, J.
Mr. John and Mr. Mathers.


Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)
Pritt, D. N.

CLASS VII.

REVENUE BUILDINGS.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £66,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1937, for Expenditure in respect of Customs and Excise, Inland Revenue, Post Office and Telegraph Buildings in Great Britain, certain Post Offices

abroad, and for certain expenses in connection with Boats and Launches belonging to the Customs and Excise Department

11.13 p.m.

Mr. G. Griffiths: I should like an answer to a question which m as raised earlier this evening in regard to the big increases which appear on These Estimates in respect of fuel. I find on totalling up all the increases of expend- tore on fuel that


there is no less than £88,900 increase in these Supplementary Estimates in respect of fuel alone. I asked the Minister earlier to give us the price per ton paid by the Government, and he gave an estimate showing as far as coal was concerned that it was round about 2s. per ton increase, and that on coke there was something like 5s. 6d. per ton increase. I have here the ascertainment figures for the 12 months for Yorkshire and they show the actual additional profits for the last 12 months, as against 1935. The profits in 1935 were £1,607,395, or 9.31d. per ton. In regard to 1936, the coalowners said, "We cannot give the miners an increase because we cannot afford it, and the increase we are giving them will have to come out of some of the profits made last year." We find that the profits made up to the end of 1936 in the Yorkshire coalfields were £2,259,760, or an additional profit of over £600,000. The increase in wages to the miners is the difference between 10s. 4.5d. and 11s. 3.12d. The increase in profits is the difference between 9d. per ton last year and is. 0.37d. this year. For last month the owners' profit in my county was is. 9½. per ton, clear.

The Deputy-Chairman: I am in a difficulty to see what is the responsibility of the Office of Works here. Had it been the Mines Department Vote, I could have understood the hon. Member.

Mr. Griffiths: What I would like to know is why the Office of Works, as far as these places are concerned, are paying £88,000 more. Why are we paying this tremendous increase when the increased price of coal was specially ear-marked, not for owners profits, but for an increase in miners wages? In one county alone I have shown that there were greater profits to the extent of £600,000 last year than in the previous year.

11.17 p.m.

Mr. H. G. Williams: I did not intervene until I heard the hon. Member say that the increase was ear-marked for miners wages. I take it that the increase to which he was referring was the voluntary increase of 1s. per ton which a large number of buyers of coal agreed to pay on existing contracts.

Mr. Griffiths: Yes, and any other increase, because the owners said they were losing then.

Mr. Williams: The increase in which there was an undertaking to ear-mark—

The Deputy-Chairman: I must abide by my original Ruling. We cannot go into the distribution of coal profits on this Estimate. If hon. Members desire to raise it, they must do so on the Mines Department Estimate.

11.20 p.m.

Mr. Benson: Further to that point of Order. As the increases were granted voluntarily on prices fixed by previous contracts, and, so far as we know, the Office of Works themselves may have voluntarily given an increase, surely we are entitled to know whether that increase has gone to its appointed end, or has been sidetracked into the pockets of the mine-owners.

The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Member is entitled to know whether the Office of Works did give a voluntary increase, but cannot go into the question of its destination on this Vote.

11.21 p.m.

Mr. Batey: On page 30, there is an item of £1,500 for fuel, and further down another £3,500 for fuel. On page 31, there is an item of £35,000. On the last Estimate, I was pleased to see the Parliamentary Secretary rise and to hear his voice, because earlier, when I wanted him to give us a little information, he was dumb. What he did tell us was that there had been an increase of between 2s. and 3s. per ton in the price of coal and an increase of between 5s. and 6s. in the price of coke. Will he tell us just what the Government paid per ton for coal and for coke? Then, we want to know to whom they paid the money, because we have a just suspicion that this increase has gone into the pockets of the coal factors in London and has never reached the miners. If there are increases in price to assist the miners' wages, we pay willingly, but we certainly refuse to pay any increase if it goes to swell the profits of the coal factors. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will be able on this Estimate to give the information he refused to give on the former Estimate, because I repeat that there is no justification for the present price of coal in London; it is a ridiculous price considering what the miners get for producing the coal.

11.23 p.m.

Mr. Kelly: I wish to draw attention to items in the Estimate dealing with maintenance and repairs. Under paragraph (b) we are asked for £3,000 for further provision for what are called "minor alterations. "That is additional to what we voted earlier. I realise that the Department deals with Customs and Excise buildings; does that mean that there have been extensions to them? Then there is an item of £3,000 for new works and alterations in connection with post office and telegraph buildings, and I feel that the Minister could give us an explanation of why that expenditure is needed. There is a further big item of £45,500 for maintenance and repairs, a very large addition to the amount voted earlier. I have not heard of any great wage increases, and I am wondering what is the explanation in that case. There is a curious item with regard to household articles, where they speak of an increase in prices. They are demanding another £4,500. Is that due to tariffs or to any of these quota arrangements or other items which the Government seem to be so fond of? If so, we ought to have an explanation of that item.

11.26 p.m.

Mr. Hudson: I have already dealt with the questions as to the increases in the cost of fuel, and I have nothing to add. As regards the £44,000 for maintenance and repairs, hon. Members will remember that some of it is a result of the largely increased services; alterations and improvements are constantly being called for.

Mr. Batey: Does not the Minister intend to reply on the coal questions? He has not answered my questions about the price paid for fuel. Should I be in order in moving to report Progress?

11.28 p.m.

Mr. Paling: Why should the Parliamentary Secretary be so reluctant to tell the Committee about these increases? He spent a considerable time on another Estimate trying to persuade the Committee that it would not be in the public interest to disclose what he was paying. Here is an increase of 2s. to 3s. per ton on our coal, and the Parliamentary Secretary does not even make an inquiry into it. There is this enormous increase, and we have merely the bald statement of it. When we ask the Parliamentary

Secretary why, he does not know. Either it is not in the public interest or it is too much trouble for him to tell us.

11.30 p.m.

Mr. Hudson: The hon. Member is, quite unconsciously, doing me an injustice. I do not know whether he was here when I gave an explanation earlier about the increase in the cost of fuel, but the question directed to me from the benches opposite on this matter was whether I would explain to whom this increase had gone. I have told hon. Members opposite and the Committee that that was not a job for the Office of Works, but for the Mines Department. All that we are concerned with is to see that we get, in the public interest, the cheapest possible coal, and that we have done, because the various contracts have been put out to tender, and we have accepted the lowest satisfactory tenders. The reasons for the increase in price are various. The hon. Member knows that he has an idea where the money has gone; so have I; but it is not my job, as representing the Office of Works, to discuss the work of the Mines Department, and I should be out of order if I tried to do so.

Mr. Paling: Is it not the custom of the hon. Gentleman and the Office of Works, when there has been an increase like 2s. to 3s. a ton on one tender as compared with the last, to inquire as to the reason for the increase? That is what we want to know. The hon. Gentleman says I have some idea; I have; but I have also the knowledge that the increase in the miners' wages is only to the extent of 1s. a day in a very few districts, and in some it is as little as 3d.

The Chairman: That is quite out of order, and I cannot allow the hon. Member to argue it.

Mr. Paling: I was not intending to argue it, but was merely mentioning it in passing, as the Minister says I know where it has gone. I know that some of it has gone in that direction, but not all of the 2s. or 3s., by any means.

The Chairman: It would not be in order to discuss it on this Estimate.

Mr. Attlee: On a point of Order. Here we have a Supplementary Estimate asking for sums of money for coal and coke,


and the answer of the Minister is that there has been an increase in prices. Surely we are in order in asking the Minister whether he has found some reason for the increase?

The Chairman: No; it appears to be the case that market prices have been paid, or prices which have been obtained by tender.

Mr. Attlee: With great respect, we have no information on that point beyond a vague statement. We have not been told whether these tenders were from London merchants and factors or direct from the pits; we know nothing whatever about it.

The Chairman: Unfortunately I was not in the Chair at the time, but I have gathered that tenders were invited in the ordinary way. I do not imagine that it was a peculiarly strict and limited form of tender; no doubt, if the right hon. Gentleman had thought that anything like that was the case, he would have asked a direct question.

Mr. Attlee: That specific question has been asked.

The Chairman: That question might, perhaps, be put, but I must lay down quite strictly that the reasons for the market price which has to be paid for any goods by the Office of Works are not a matter which the Office of Works can be asked now to disclose; they have to accept the market price.

11.35 p.m.

Mr. Garro Jones: Your predecessor in the Chair was good enough to rule that we were entitled to ask the Minister whether this increase was a voluntary increase or not. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] It is clearly within the rules of order, when a Minister asks for an additional sum, for the Committee to ask whether he has paid the additional sum voluntarily or compulsorily. That would be tie case on every Supplementary Estimate if the Committee had any reason to believe that he had paid it voluntarily. Here is a case where there is a presumption that it has been paid voluntarily. There is a large number of increases in the price of coal which were paid voluntarily on certain contracts to meet certain conditions in the coal industry. Your predecessor ruled that we were entitled to ask that question and I

hope you will rule that it is in order for the hon. Gentleman to reply to it.

Mr. H. G. Williams: May draw your attention, Sir Dennis, to the fact that when the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Mr. G. Griffiths) raised the question of these prices I rose in order to deal with the point, but your predecessor ruled that it would be improper for me to go into it and I accepted his ruling because I saw its validity.

Mr. Benson: I think the hon. Member has overlooked the fact that—

The Chairman: I need not trouble the hon. Member on that subject. I have already given my ruling. With regard to the other point, a very limited question such as the hon. Member suggested would, no doubt, be permissible. Whether it has been answered or not I do not know, but I must ask hon. Members to accept my ruling that this is merely a case where the Office of Works is having to buy certain materials according to market prices at the time. If there is a special suggestion that they have done otherwise, that is a question that may be put plainly and, no doubt, will be answered.

11.37 p.m.

Mr. Hudson: Perhaps hon. Members are under some misapprehension about this question and are mixing up two different things. Some have in mind the shilling increase per ton which was given voluntarily, and others have in mind the price being paid for current contracts. The Estimates were originally made up in 1935 within the knowledge and expectation of what prices would be in 1936. In January, 1936, the Office of Works paid a shilling voluntarily, and I imagine a Supplementary Estimate for that amount was passed last year. The contract ran out in June last year and new contracts were entered into as the result of tenders, and there, clearly, the voluntary payment did not operate, because it was included in the tender prices. We are operating on the basis of contract prices as from June last year. These tenders represented an increase of 2s. to 3s. a ton over the prices that we had placed in our Estimates.

Mr. Paling: We have to assume then that the tenders were accepted without asking any reason for the increase?

11.40 p.m.

Mr. Benson: I cannot accept the hon. Gentleman's explanation for these fuel increases. He says there were certain contracts which ran out in June, and upon those contracts a voluntary shilling was paid. Our financial year runs from 1st April to 31st March, and the shortage in the estimate for fuel is made up of two factors—the 1s. that was paid voluntarily from 1st April until June and the increased market price of 2s., which operated from June onwards. Therefore, the particular figure of £35,000 is made up partly of the voluntary 1s. and partly of the compulsory 2s. owing to the increased market price. As a portion of this Supplementary Estimate is due to the voluntary 1s paid by the Office of Works, are we not entitled to inquire of the Office of Works what steps they took to see that the 1s. went into the pockets of the miners?

The Chairman: I have definitely ruled that matter out of order.

Mr. Garro Jones: When we come to ask the Secretary for Mines whether he took steps to ensure that this increase went to the right place, he will say that he was not responsible for paying the increase.

The Chairman: What the hon. Member proposes to ask the Secretary for Mines is a matter to be dealt with when he has an opportunity of doing so.

Mr. Garro Jones: I am merely pointing out that when the Minister refers us to the Secretary for Mines, the Secretary for Mines—

The Chairman: The hon. Member is out of order in what he is trying to say.

11.42 p.m.

Mr. Ede: I do not understand why we cannot be told the price per ton. I believe that all the coal in the country now is supposed to be sold under coal-selling schemes. If that be so, surely, the price that the Government are paying for that coal has to me disclosed to the various managing bodies responsible for running these schemes. Are we to understand that coal sold to the Government is outside these schemes, and that the prices are not disclosed? It is very astonishing news that matters of this kind cannot be disclosed to the Committee. I wonder what

would be thought in the London County Council election now proceeding if the Council said, "Our coal is bought subject to tender and, therefore, we do not propose to disclose the price to the electors of London?" I would guarantee that at last the Opposition party on the London County Council would be able to find a good poster to put up. If we cannot be told the price of the coal and coke, can we be told the number of tons that have been purchased? Or is that another piece of secret information? I really fail to appreciate the humour that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade finds in that innocent question. I was going to rely upon him to do the mental arithmetic for me, because I know that he is a bit of a lightning calculator when it suits his purpose.
The way that the Committee have been treated on two items to-night makes one wonder whether the proper thing to do is, that the Minister should submit these Estimates, and, as soon as anyone gets up to ask a question, the Chief Whip, or his satellite who happens to be present at the moment, should move the Closure, on the ground that all inquiry is against the public interest, and that inquisitiveness on the part of the Opposition is to be discouraged. This House even in the time of Charles I was at least given some answer to its questions. Members were given their reply before they were put in the Tower. To-night one might just as well be in the Tower. There, at any rate, one would hear the question being answered as to the ownership of the Keys, without the suggestion that it was against the public interest that any information should be vouchsafed. Will the Parliamentary Secretary, as representing the Office of Works, tell us that he does not know, or will he give us the number of tons of coal and coke that have been used, and which are the subject of this Supplementary Estimate? Or is there some secret that will destroy the State and help Hitler or Stalin or some other undesirable person if they hear about it? We have been asked to admit that the House of Commons has no right to know anything, except when the Minister may possibly as a result of a number of visits by his Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Box under the Gallery, know a little about the matter. I very much doubt whether he even knows as much as he pretends to know.

11.47 p.m.

Mr. Radford: I cannot think that hon. Members opposite are as foolish as they are making themselves out to be. It is absurd to ask the Parliamentary Secretary the price per ton which the Office of Works have paid for the coal concerned in this additional Estimate. He said that there are 2,500 Post Offices and many Inland Revenue and other offices spread all over the country, which use coal. Hon. Members must know that when you are having coal delivered to you at a point near the pithead the price is very different from the price charged if the coal has to be delivered at some place a distance away. Yet hon. Members ask what price has had to be paid for coal. He would probably have to give 100 or 200 different prices.

11.48 p.m.

Mr. D. Grenfell: The Parliamentary Secretary has not taken the Committee into his confidence. All that we have been told is that during the current year there are three prices—the original tender price, the original tender price plus 1s., and a second tender price. Can he not tell us what additional payment he has to make, by adding the 1s. per ton, which was the amount of the voluntary agreement, to the original tender price, and how much is made up by the additional tender price? Unless we can be given information to which we are entitled I shall feel disposed to move to Report Progress. It is simply reluctance on the part of the Minister to tell us.

11.49 p.m.

Mr. Hudson: I am not in the least reluctant to give any figures which I have. I have explained that as far as these Supplementary Estimates are concerned we are dealing with contract prices which run as from June of last year. We are dealing with figures for coal supplies from June, 1936, on contracts running to June, 1937. There may be some unimportant small amount in respect of the voluntary increase of 1s. per ton, but I am informed that very much the greater part of the increase is in respect of contracts running from 1st July.

Mr. Grenfell: What is to prevent the hon. Gentleman telling the Committee what volume of coal has been contracted for at the higher price?

Mr. Hudson: I dare say that with a great deal of difficulty we could obtain

the information for the hon. Member from the Department, and if he is really keen I will do my best to-morrow to get him the information, though I do not think it will help him in the least.

11.51 p.m.

Mr. Garro Jones: I hope the Committee will take notice of the increasing tendency of declining to give information. Does the hon. Member imagine that if he declines to give a contract price it will have any effect on the future price he pays? Does he think these coal sellers do not exchange information to the fullest extent of the price the Government pays for coal? If that principle is to be carried to its logical conclusion, when the First Lord of the Admiralty orders a new battleship we shall find that he will decline to give us details of the price or armament, on the ground that if Turkey asked a private firm to construct one the private firm would find the Government price had been given away and the firm would not be able to supply a foreign country at a higher price. I found last week that 12 tenders had been put in for a new bridge, and they all reached the price of £47,912 14s. 9d. It is ludicrous for the Minister to withhold information from the Committee on the supposition that he is thereby concealing the price from the friends of the firm who supply the coal.
Having regard to the secrets we have discovered to-night it is with some temerity that I want to raise a fresh point. There is in the Estimates the interesting item "certain Post Offices abroad" I know that our Post Office is a far-flung institution and has certain offices in foreign countries, but I should like to know the location of these offices, and for what the money is being paid.

The Chairman: Will the hon. Member for my guidance be good enough to tell me where this item is?

Mr. Garro Jones: It is on page 29, in the heading to the Vote.

The Chairman: In the particulars given I see nothing of any expenditure under that head, but I may be wrong.

Mr. Garro Jones: Perhaps the Minister will tell us whether any of this amount is in truth for "certain Post Offices abroad" which are listed in the heading, and if not, why we should be troubled with such a cryptic reference?

The Chairman: The hon. Member has referred to the heading, but I must point out to him that it has been put down because it is the heading of the original Estimate. The matter to which he has referred is not in the Supplementary Estimate, and the Debate must be confined to those particulars in respect of which the Estimate has been brought forward.

11.56 p.m.

Mr. Potts: It is to me a matter of wonder why the Government decline to give this information. In the Estimates Committee the same point was raised in years gone by. All the coal was bought by contract, and the information given to me was that it was bought through factors. The hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. G. Williams) was on the same Committee and he knows as well as I do that the Estimates Committee were given the tonnage and the price per ton. The Department is bound to know exactly what has been paid. They know the tonnage and the price, and that in-formation ought to be given. If the price has been unreasonably increased beyond the 1s. per ton, the miners are entitled to more money than they are getting in wages. If the Minister is not in a position to give the information now, I think that we should have an undertaking that he will supply it at a date convenient to himself.

Mr. Hudson: I have already said that I will do my best to obtain the information as to tonnage.

Question put,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £66,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1937, for Expenditure in respect of Customs and Excise, Inland Revenue, Post Office and Telegraph Buildings in Great Britain, certain Post Offices abroad, and for certain expenses in connection with Boats and Launches belonging to the Customs and Excise Department.

The Committee proceeded to a Division.

Mr. STUART and Sir HENRY MORRIS-JONES were appointed Tellers for the Ayes, but there being no Members willing to act as Tellers for the Noes, The CHAIRMAN declared that the Ayes had it.

12.2 a.m.

Mr. T. Williams: May I ask the chief Patronage Secretary to be good enough to tell the Committee how far he intends to go. It is now past midnight, and I understood the Prime Minister to say earlier that it was not his intention to sit late.

12.3 a.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Captain Margesson): There is only one more Supplementary Estimate to be taken, namely, that for Royal Parks and Pleasure Gardens. The Government would like to get that before we adjourn. The Report stage of the Supplementary Estimates which were taken on Monday are not being proceeded with, but the Government would have liked the Committee stage of the British Shipping Bill. The Prime Minister said at Question Time that he did not propose to ask the Committee to sit late, and if the Committee do not wish to proceed with this Bill, it will not be taken to-night. The same applies to the Empire Settlement Bill.

CLASS VII.

ROYAL PARKS AND PLEASURE GARDENS.

Resolved,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £6,400, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1937, for expenditure in respect of Royal Parks and Pleasure Gardens

Resolutions to be reported upon Thursday; Committee to sit again upon Thursday.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

It being after Half-past Eleven of the Clock upon Tuesday evening, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Five Minutes after Twelve o'Clock.